Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Military Life and Issues
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Do you Agree with the Pentagon removing the ban on women in combat?
I do agree. Women should be allowed in combat. 21 55.26%
I do not agree. Women should not be allowed in combat. 9 23.68%
I'm not sure, it would depend on other factors. 7 18.42%
I do not care. 1 2.63%
Voters: 38. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-01-2013, 01:21 PM
 
6,534 posts, read 7,251,559 times
Reputation: 3800

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjh View Post
There are so few women who will qualify that the expense of training them and having more than 90% wash out by today's standards will make this a costly mess. Thus, standards may be lowered, and we are all in more danger. Like women firefighters who cannot lift a person to safety because strength requirements have been lowered. Who do you want to pull your unconscious body from a burning building? Who do you want protecting our country in war? It's a boondoggle.
Send a group of 5 women on a mission on their own with no man around to help them and 5 men on another mission. You can already imagine the results.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-01-2013, 02:51 PM
 
Location: New Mexico U.S.A.
26,527 posts, read 51,508,687 times
Reputation: 31319
Quote:
Originally Posted by onihC View Post
You can already imagine the results.
That's all it would be, imagining... Fortunately, what I saw in the military was not imagining...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2013, 08:25 PM
 
Location: Eastern Kentucky
1,236 posts, read 3,104,752 times
Reputation: 1307
Yep, I can imagine the results. Women 1, Men O. Given most of the womem I was in the military with, They would have outproformed the men hands down. Get the job done, the hell with the consequences.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2013, 03:29 AM
 
1,092 posts, read 1,550,583 times
Reputation: 750
Quote:
Originally Posted by onihC View Post
Send a group of 5 women on a mission on their own with no man around to help them and 5 men on another mission. You can already imagine the results.
Oh that is hilarious lololololololololol

If you girls don't get it yet, we dudes who oppose this idea are mystified because you are challenging us with brawn. You know muscle? Athletic ability? Something that is GENETICALLY impossible for you. Rather see women fight us on a field where both sides are equal. Not in a stupid fitness test.

Damn lobbyist lol must be....has to be the lobbyist.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/18/sp...anted=all&_r=0

Just skim the jargon and skip to the last 3 paragraphs if interested. Scholars always like to brag about how smart they are andwell waste everyone's time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2013, 02:06 PM
 
Location: NC
4,532 posts, read 8,836,948 times
Reputation: 4754
I think this post says it all!

As a female, I think the ban should remain. I have had my share of not being treated fairly being a female in the working world (not now, many years ago). And have delighted when we made advances that were earned. However, this nonsense of pandering to any segment of the population while throwing good sense and caution to the wind, has to stop! This will endanger our troops. I have a nephew in the Army, I wouldn't want him to have to rely on a female soldier in combat to have his back. As the female soldier in the link said, very few women would be able to stand up to the strength most men have in combat.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2013, 03:18 PM
 
Location: On a Long Island in NY
7,801 posts, read 10,061,700 times
Reputation: 7366
Quote:
Originally Posted by masonsdaughter View Post
Yep, I can imagine the results. Women 1, Men O. Given most of the womem I was in the military with, They would have outproformed the men hands down. Get the job done, the hell with the consequences.

^ I think that sums up this post.

Tell me Masonsdaughter, how far can you run wearing/carrying 90lbs of equipment? Can you carry a 180lb wounded man to safety? Can you take a human life without hesitation?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2013, 09:47 PM
 
18,837 posts, read 37,203,487 times
Reputation: 26457
Quote:
Originally Posted by WIHS2006 View Post

^ I think that sums up this post.

Tell me Masonsdaughter, how far can you run wearing/carrying 90lbs of equipment? Can you carry a 180lb wounded man to safety? Can you take a human life without hesitation?
The issue with this statement is that there are currently men in combat who cannot pass those standards. That being aside, there may be combat roles women can do effectively, such as be a Navy pilot on a combat mission. "Combat" does not always mean "on the ground infantry". Same as women serving combat missions in a submarine. If women can perform the same tasks required, and want the job, let them serve.

Last edited by jasper12; 02-04-2013 at 09:57 PM.. Reason: edit
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2013, 09:52 PM
 
Location: New Mexico U.S.A.
26,527 posts, read 51,508,687 times
Reputation: 31319
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasper12 View Post
The issue with this statement is that there are currently men in combat who cannot pass those standards.
Then they are in violation of a regulation. You can try and talk around that all you want. Has nothing to do with anything else. You are either withing regulation or your are not withing regulation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2013, 10:04 PM
 
Location: Forests of Maine
37,218 posts, read 60,933,271 times
Reputation: 30088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poncho_NM View Post
Then they are in violation of a regulation. You can try and talk around that all you want. Has nothing to do with anything else. You are either withing regulation or your are not withing regulation.
With respect.

Regulations require that each servicemember be able to pass the PRT standards [Running, push-ups, sit-ups].

Carrying a 180lb dead weight is not a PRT standard.

I am not familiar with any DOD regulation that requires carrying 180lbs.

Granted I have very limited experience in the military having only served for 20 years on Active Duty; and I only got combat pay for 18 of those years. So you may certainly have more experience than I have.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2013, 10:24 PM
 
Location: New Mexico U.S.A.
26,527 posts, read 51,508,687 times
Reputation: 31319
When I said: "Then they are in violation of a regulation."

I really meant to say: "If they are in violation of a regulation."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Military Life and Issues
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top