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.
I'm a combat vet (VN). Combat units are pretty tight. We did not have women of course, but I still can't see guys turning on a female buddy and raping her. You might find a crazy who would try, but I think he would be sent to his maker pretty quickly by the other men in the unit. I mean, most guys don't rape their sisters, do they?
"Suddenly, my skills as an Arabic linguist were more important than my gender: On combat foot patrols with infantry troops, my ability to help successfully accomplish the mission was the only thing that mattered.
...
Those who served in Iraq and Afghanistan came to understand that in complex counterinsurgency operations, especially in Muslim nations, the presence of women troops is a vital way to interact with the civilian population—so important, in fact, that military leaders have long been skirting the old regulations by placing women in combat units."
I am willing to bet that any woman who has served in Iraq and Afghanistan has already been exposed to every horrible thing imaginable. Why wouldn't she have been? How would she have been shielded?
Seriously.
As I've posted ad nauseam, Audie Murphy was 5'5 and 110 lbs. I'm sure the Wehrmacht would have much preferred a situation where he was kept away from combat duty.
And as I've posted, there was a russian female sniper with 309 kills vs. the wehrmacht....I think they'd wished she were knitting somewhere too.
However, for certain military roles there have ALWAYS been specific physical requirements.
For example, for ball turret gunners they wanted little guys like Murphy. For guys flinging artillery round after round into guns or carrying the squad LMG for miles they liked burlier guys.
Let's not kid ourselves either 110lb adult male that is 5'5 is going to be stronger than the vast majority of women. When I was that size in highschool I could bench 180lbs and deadlift 300.
Women can definitely do combat, there are however certain roles in the military that regardless of sex one has to meet certain physical specifications for that task.
Let's suppose for a second your life is depending on the speed and efficiency of the people firing this weapon. If you had a choice between a crew of randomly selected women or men could anyone honestly say they would choose the women?
Since gun crews aren't made up of "randomly" selected individuals the question is a non sequitur.
When not acting as over guard for boarding parties my other GQ billet was serving in the upper handling room of a 5 inch gun. During our tour off Vietnam we fired almost two thousand rounds, of ground support artillery fire and for naval interdiction so I feel well qualified in stating that there are more than a few postions that any woman could fill no matter what her physical capabilities were just as there were men who were physically incapable of continuace lifting of 55 lbs shells and powder casings at the required pace who we had to shift to other positions in the gun.
So my answer is an unequivocal yes, I would choose a woman. In fact if I had some of the women that frequent my gym there were a bunch of guys I wouldn't have chosen (not that is was up to me to choose anyone in the first place).
GAZA, hevron, schem, trust me not even close to a vacation. I already explained woman do not serve in front line infantry units. There are combat roles that they serve in, and do a great job. Integrating infantry is a bad idea and theres no reason to do it. Nothing can be gained.
If the Israeli military was fighting a real war and was on the front line on the same scale as the US is fighting in Afghanistan and fought in Iraq, you would get a much different picture of what an actual war is, what Israeli military experienced up to now in Gaza, Hevron, Schem would be considered a vacation.
Read a few books written by those who served in Iraq and Afghanistan - especially Afghanistan - and compare the missions and conditions that they served under (and our soldliers continue to serve under) to what you may think were tough conditions while serving the Israeli military. It's like comparing chalk and cheese.
If the Israeli military was fighting a real war and was on the front line on the same scale as the US is fighting in Afghanistan and fought in Iraq, you would get a much different picture of what an actual war is, what Israeli military experienced up to now in Gaza, Hevron, Schem would be considered a vacation.
Read a few books written by those who served in Iraq and Afghanistan - especially Afghanistan - and compare the missions and conditions that they served under (and our soldliers continue to serve under) to what you may think were tough conditions while serving the Israeli military. It's like comparing chalk and cheese.
i trained with us marines and army, we talked about everything so i think i have a pretty good picture of what's what. Iv read plenty of books not to mention i have a handful of childhood friends who have seen all of that so don't talk to me like your some source of wisdom. Not to mention there is gonna be a war with lebanon that is worse than anything you mentioned above. You have know idea what iv been through so don't talk to me like you do
Translation: conservatives believe that soldiers are rapists.
That's the piece of the puzzle needed for their logic to work. This means that conservatives either:
1. Have a very low opinion of the people they idolize.
2. Actually think the rate of sexual assault in the military is justifiable because the soldiers are "very stressed out".
3. Unable to understand that their premises are in contradiction.
Throughout history women have played a part in combat in one way or another. Personally I think putting them on the front lines with men would be a mistake. Many if not most frontline combat positions absolutely require muscles that women just don’t have. If there are women out there who can meet exactly the same standards as the men who fill out our combat units, then more power to them. But history suggests that what will most likely happen is someone will sue and either the courts or the Congress will force the military branches to make their training programs easier for women to pass. In combat, that liberal attitude could get women killed. It could also result in a physically weaker and less successful ground force. Remember "affirmative action"? Are we sure this won't work the same way? Rather than lifting up people who could use help developing their skills and careers, affirmative action has the opposite effect, dragging down entire programs and industries. Women on the front lines who are not strong enough to do the work could have the same effect.
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.
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.
