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.
Back then (1992), the commission concluded: "unnecessary distraction or any dilution of the combat effectiveness puts the mission and lives in jeopardy. Risking the lives of a military unit in combat to provide career opportunities or accommodate the personal desires or interests of an individual, or group of individuals, is more than bad military judgment. It is morally wrong."
And, it is morally wrong but we've decided being politically correct is more important.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
I guess it's time for all female combat units. Right?
If we were talking about tanks these inferior tanks would never be able to enter the service. Why is it so much more convoluted? Women are inferior war fighters and cost more per capita than male war fighters. Those two things combined should make the decision easy.
If we were talking about tanks these inferior tanks would never be able to enter the service. Why is it so much more convoluted? Women are inferior war fighters and cost more per capita than male war fighters. Those two things combined should make the decision easy.
Women are not "inferior" tanks. I truly do not understand why you are putting down females who are in combat roles.
There are certainly a limited number of women who could fill combat roles if we looked for them hard enough. My opinion is that looking hard for non-traditional soldiers is not the military's job. That's the rational response.
My irrational "gut" response is that once the country decides to put its women into the utter hell of death which is combat -- and I've been there -- any aspirations we have in the area of ethics and human decency go out the window.
Sure, sure, sure. Denmark. Sweden. Even Israel, to an extremely limited extent. These forces are miniscule compared to ours, their responsibilities much less broad, and they are formed from societies which are more homogenous and inclined to androgynous social roles than ours.
Did you miss the OP? They reduce combat effectiveness and cost more.
Women have been taking on combat roles all along despite your protests. I am sorry you feel the need to insult females fighting for your freedom. You can find all sorts of studies, but it still doesn't negate the fact women have been in these roles throughout history.
************************************************** **********************
During the First World War, 15 all-female units were formed by the Russian army. Although largely viewed by authorities as propaganda instruments to lift the spirits of losing male troops, over six thousand women joined the Battalions of Death to serve in the trenches, partake in combat and carry out dangerous reconnaissance missions.
It's been proven thousands of years ago, why do the same study today.
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.
