Women in Combat

So, you want to drag it down even more and add more stressers to the situation, when we already have a high level of suicide and a high level of people in the service right now who did not join to be in combat.

You are actually making the argument for not integrating females into combat units. As for being ill-equipped that has to do with authorizations and budgetary constraints as "priorties" shift away from tanks and bullets to food stamps and medicaid. So now we are going to further burden the military with incapable servicemembers who need "accommodations"? Originally Posted by LexusLover

People who join should want to be in combat.People who are drafted do not.

Hypothetical

Im a 6' 4" 230lb marine, in full combat gear I weigh over 250lbs ... Im fighting beside a 5' 4" 135lb female marine ... I get severely wounded, and go into shock .. my life depends on her dragging me to saftey...

Im dead. Originally Posted by CJ7

How about a 5'7" 165 pound man?

Hypothetical

Im a 6' 4" 230lb marine, in full combat gear I weigh over 250lbs ... Im fighting beside a 5' 4" 135lb female marine ... I get severely wounded, and go into shock .. my life depends on her dragging me to saftey...

Im dead. Originally Posted by CJ7

I agree. The military should certainly consider all "hypothetical" situations before coming to a final decision. When I was in the military I was 5'9" and weighed 150.
In very good physical condition. Don't know how far I could have carried someone weighing 250 lbs.

I'd be interested in someone who has been in combat situations telling us what physical requirements were placed on the males before they were deemed ready for combat. I had 8 weeks of basic training and scored higher on the PT test at the beginning of training than at the end. Physical training was a joke. Maybe 8 or so weeks at AIT better prepared a soldier for combat.

http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2008/...2871210625538/

Considering women make up more than half the population, something must be going on to result in such a small percentage.
Could it be that when it all comes down to the basic facts, they simply cannot cut it when the physical demands become real. Jusr sayin.......... Originally Posted by Jackie S

You missed my statement "when the physical demands become real".

There is a lot of difference in being able to pass a test in a controled atmosphere and being able to do it in the presence of real life threatning danger.

But your point is taken.

How about a 5'7" 165 pound man? Originally Posted by i'va biggen

great for the 5'7" 165lb men .. maybe?

for the big guys, not so much


I still have trouble seeing an avreage size woman throwing an average sized man over her shoulder and packing him 100 or more yards to saftey .. reverse the scenario seems more plausible IMO

There are no potential risks. There are only absolute positive risks. I've seen combat. My guess is that you have not. If I'm wrong I thank you for your service. Originally Posted by rodog44

And you believe there are no possible benefits to this?

I am not a member of the military but does that somehow invalidate my belief? What do you say then to those of the military who are in support of the new policy?

Hypothetical

Im a 6' 4" 230lb marine, in full combat gear I weigh over 250lbs ... Im fighting beside a 5' 4" 135lb female marine ... I get severely wounded, and go into shock .. my life depends on her dragging me to saftey...

Im dead. Originally Posted by CJ7

Again, no one (that I have heard here) is advocating allowing in anyone who can't meet the requirements.

And you believe there are no possible benefits to this?

I am not a member of the military but does that somehow invalidate my belief? What do you say then to those of the military who are in support of the new policy?



Again, no one (that I have heard here) is advocating allowing in anyone who can't meet the requirements. Originally Posted by jbravo_123

what requirements would that be?

People who join should want to be in combat.People who are drafted do not. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Someone can correct me, but we haven't had a "draft" in about 40 years!

I think we are talking volunteering females.

So now we are going to have a standard for females ... only those who volunteer for combat units; and

.... a different one for males .. all of them are subject to being sent into combat....

All of this back and forth demonstrates why in some circumstances the SCOTUS has allowed "exemptions" from the standard equal protection implementation to allow for employment situations that require unique activities not necessarily suitable for both genders equally. And recent decisions have been backing away from "accommodations" to facilitate "equality" due to the potential of "watering down" the task requirements to an unacceptable lower level to accommodate what amounts to a social agenda and an attempt to demonstrate that which does not exist in reality.

I am not a member of the military but does that somehow invalidate my belief? What do you say then to those of the military who are in support of the new policy? Originally Posted by jbravo_123

You mean this guy?


Let me introduce you to a member of his "combat" unit:



She "has his back."

what requirements would that be? Originally Posted by CJ7

I would presume that the military has some sort of requirements that its soldiers must meet in order to serve in a combat unit.

You mean this guy?


Let me introduce you to a member of his "combat" unit:



She "has his back." Originally Posted by LexusLover

I'd still do Hillary.

I'd still do Hillary. Originally Posted by jbravo_123

I just couldn't stand her bitching the whole time.

Certificate of the Year

TOFTT

I just couldn't stand her bitching the whole time. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Ah but the tears just make it all the sweeter.

Ah but the tears just make it all the sweeter. Originally Posted by jbravo_123

Well, that helps. At least it isn't lust.

How about a 5'7" 165 pound man? Originally Posted by i'va biggen

I knew you were gay.