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.
It's about time, we are just catching up with dozens of other countries. These are women who are ready to fight and willing to die for our country, which separates them from the vast majority of the population, including most men. That's deserving of great respect.
Tell us what countries you are referring to. Norway, Italy, perhaps Spain? And it it is these sort of countries tell us the difference between their military activity now opposed to 50 years ago. Another words how many women in these nations fought on the front lines when these countries were in fact fighting in major wars.
"U.S. military leaders on Thursday formally lifted the ban on women serving in combat positions, with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta saying women have become an "integral part" of the military and have already demonstrated their willingness to fight during the wars of the last decade.
"It's clear to all of us that women are contributing in unprecedented ways to the military's mission of defending the nation," Panetta said.
The change would open hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs to women. Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey both approved the change Thursday, and the White House separately said it endorsed the decision.
The groundbreaking move recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff overturns a 1994 rule banning women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units. Panetta's decision gives the military services until January 2016 to seek special exceptions if they believe any positions must remain closed to women.
He argued that women, who already make up 15 percent of the force, have increasingly found themselves in the "reality of combat" during Iraq and Afghanistan. He said not everyone can meet the qualifications to be a combat soldier but that everyone is entitled the opportunity.
"They're serving in a growing number of critical roles on and off the battlefield," Panetta said of women. "They have become an integral part of our ability to perform our mission."
This is not about forcing women into combat positions, so many of these posts are just reactionary, made without attempting to understand what is actually happening. Everyone regardless of gender should have to ability to apply for any job, excluding someone on gender alone is unconstitutional.
This does not mean anyone will be automatically GIVEN a job in combat, it only means they will be given the opportunity to apply and attempt to meet the all the physical and intellectual requirements of any particular job, if they can't, they won't get the job, just like the men who apply for various positions in the military and find themselves unable to meet the requirements. No one is asking for special treatment, or to be GIVEN anything, they simply want the option to try, there is no logical reason to deny women this opportunity.
It is for the most part, very committed carreer military women who wish to apply for combat related jobs, they want to serve their country in every capacity, they are willing to die for our country, and prove they have the commitment, skill and competency to become military leaders. Many of our country's military women are already out there risking their lives, to deny them opportunities based on gender alone is unacceptable. I understand change is difficult, but there are many exceptional women in the military and they deserve the equal opportunity to prove themselves, especially since many have already been doing this for years.
Excellent post. As to the bolded in the last paragraph, I'd go one step further and say not only is it unnacceptable, it's just plain wrong.
"U.S. military leaders on Thursday formally lifted the ban on women serving in combat positions, with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta saying women have become an "integral part" of the military and have already demonstrated their willingness to fight during the wars of the last decade.
"It's clear to all of us that women are contributing in unprecedented ways to the military's mission of defending the nation," Panetta said.
The change would open hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs to women. Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey both approved the change Thursday, and the White House separately said it endorsed the decision.
The groundbreaking move recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff overturns a 1994 rule banning women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units. Panetta's decision gives the military services until January 2016 to seek special exceptions if they believe any positions must remain closed to women.
He argued that women, who already make up 15 percent of the force, have increasingly found themselves in the "reality of combat" during Iraq and Afghanistan. He said not everyone can meet the qualifications to be a combat soldier but that everyone is entitled the opportunity.
"They're serving in a growing number of critical roles on and off the battlefield," Panetta said of women. "They have become an integral part of our ability to perform our mission."
This is not about forcing women into combat positions, so many of these posts are just reactionary, made without attempting to understand what is actually happening. Everyone regardless of gender should have to ability to apply for any job, excluding someone on gender alone is unconstitutional.
This does not mean anyone will be automatically GIVEN a job in combat, it only means they will be given the opportunity to apply and attempt to meet the all the physical and intellectual requirements of any particular job, if they can't, they won't get the job, just like the men who apply for various positions in the military and find themselves unable to meet the requirements. No one is asking for special treatment, or to be GIVEN anything, they simply want the option to try, there is no logical reason to deny women this opportunity.
It is for the most part, very committed carreer military women who wish to apply for combat related jobs, they want to serve their country in every capacity, they are willing to die for our country, and prove they have the commitment, skill and competency to become military leaders. Many of our country's military women are already out there risking their lives, to deny them opportunities based on gender alone is unacceptable. I understand change is difficult, but there are many exceptional women in the military and they deserve the equal opportunity to prove themselves, especially since many have already been doing this for years.
The Supreme Court says that it is constitutional to exclude someone on gender alone in Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981). Furthermore, Congress has already lowered the requirements for women. They call it "gender norming."
Whoever started this post is very misinformed. Men and women soldiers have both been on the "fromt" since the start of the Iraq War. This is not Vietnam era anymore. The battlefield has changed. If you were in the military, you would know that men and women face the same dangers in combat. They go on convoys together, patrols together, they get incoming fire togeher. The only difference is women have not had the "infantry" job title. Which we don't need. Infantry still and always have needed medics, cooks, supply, etc. assigned to their units, many are FEMALE and have been all throughout the war. Take it from a female who has been there ,done that, and got two bronze stars to show for it.
Whoever started this post is very misinformed. Men and women soldiers have both been on the "fromt" since the start of the Iraq War. This is not Vietnam era anymore. The battlefield has changed. If you were in the military, you would know that men and women face the same dangers in combat. They go on convoys together, patrols together, they get incoming fire togeher. The only difference is women have not had the "infantry" job title. Which we don't need. Infantry still and always have needed medics, cooks, supply, etc. assigned to their units, many are FEMALE and have been all throughout the war. Take it from a female who has been there ,done that, and got two bronze stars to show for it.
The Supreme Court says that it is constitutional to exclude someone on gender alone in Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981). Furthermore, Congress has already lowered the requirements for women. They call it "gender norming."
The problem is you are not talking about the issue at hand of allowing women who are already in the military doing their jobs as well as men to apply for combat positions, and who will be required to meet all requirements to perform the job at 100% capacity. If you have a problem with past decisions you are welcome to fight against them. Military women are already out there proving they can do their jobs well, that's what matters. It's time to move forward. People are also given different requirements for age, that doesn't mean those people aren't valuable soldiers, you have to look at what's actually necessary for different positions in modern warfare.
"The military has different physical standards based on age and sex for the Army and Marines. In either service, the standards for both sexes would be the same for those trying to get into the infantry and other combat arms specialties.
"The department's goal in rescinding the rule is to ensure that the mission is met with the best qualified and most capable people, regardless of gender," Panetta said."
The thing is, the military excels at making young people handle situations they're not used to.
If you are in a situation where lives on the line and you are a man or woman who can't handle something this petty, you don't deserve to be there. For heaven's sake, in dance and theatre naked bodies of both genders are everywhere, people quickly stop caring, if a dancer can handle it I think a soldier can.
'Splain that to me. I'm a combat veteran who served in the light (aka: straight-leg) Infantry. I wouldn't have wanted women in one of my platoons. That's not disrespect. That's reality and practicality. Hopefully they will not be permitted in the combat arms. It seems to be only the liberals that try to make more out of it than there is.
But if women are 'officially' permitted in combat, also make them sign up for the draft.
"The change won't take place overnight: Service chiefs will have to develop plans for allowing women to seek the combat positions, a senior military official said."
Whoever started this post is very misinformed. Men and women soldiers have both been on the "fromt" since the start of the Iraq War. This is not Vietnam era anymore. The battlefield has changed. If you were in the military, you would know that men and women face the same dangers in combat. They go on convoys together, patrols together, they get incoming fire togeher. The only difference is women have not had the "infantry" job title. Which we don't need. Infantry still and always have needed medics, cooks, supply, etc. assigned to their units, many are FEMALE and have been all throughout the war. Take it from a female who has been there ,done that, and got two bronze stars to show for it.
Thanks for your service, but what and where did you get your 2 bronze stars?
I'll almost willing to bet you area an officer....just by the way you write.
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.
