Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19

Thread: Panetta opens combat roles to women

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,772

    Panetta opens combat roles to women

    The Obama administration is planning to put Women into combat. This has got to to have China, and Russia



    Read more: Panetta Opens Combat Roles to Women

  2. #2
    A battalion of pissed off women doesnt strike fear into your heart? I thought you'd been married.
    -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup. --

  3. #3
    That will work great until the first woman in combat is killed.
    Or one wants to wear a burqua.
    Or no tampons in the foxhole.

  4. #4
    Honestly think it's a terrible idea. I realize that's politically incorrect, but answered that on another site earlier today. Being equal politically is fine, it's great, but it doesnt make us "the same". As an example, putting women on the line with grunts in combat has already been tried by Israel, and it caused issues, particularly in morale. Just not feasible. That means no disrespect towards women... it actually means I respect them too much to put them in that position.
    -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup. --

  5. #5
    The military is no place for social experiments. Period.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin


  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,772
    Quote Originally Posted by robjones View Post
    As an example, putting women on the line with grunts in combat has already been tried by Israel, and it caused issues, particularly in morale. Just not feasible. That means no disrespect towards women... it actually means I respect them too much to put them in that position.
    Women can do the job in counterinsurgency in a limited manner. But a in a full-scale combat situation against North Korea and Chinese Regulars that's a completely different story. The US military hasn't been so small since the Korean war where the Army was down to 560,000 troops. This is quote amazing in that 5 years after WW2 the US barely had enough forces to hold back the North Koreans at Pusan.

    The Army is planning to draw down to below 500,000 troops and already 14% are women. It doesn't make sense to expand your force to 20-30% women. You just don't have enough men should something go down. At least with 86% manpower the US can train-up the support troops to fight alongside the infantry or tranfer men into infantry training in 6 week courses.

    The Army is preparing to launch in March a five-year, nearly 50,000-soldier drawdown, using a combination of accession cuts and voluntary and involuntary separations, similar to the post-Cold War drawdown of the 1990s, according to Lt. Gen. Thomas P. Bostick, service personnel chief.

    Gen. Ray Odierno, the service’s new chief of staff, said in early September that the Army probably will be cut beyond the 520,000-soldier level now planned.
    Army to cut nearly 50,000 soldiers over 5 years - Army News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Army Times

    Quote Originally Posted by iowadawg View Post
    That will work great until the first woman in combat is killed.
    Or one wants to wear a burqua.
    Or no tampons in the foxhole.
    Yeah! That's the plan. Build a military that you can't deploy.

    Quote Originally Posted by TopDogger View Post
    The military is no place for social experiments. Period.
    You don't see any women playing in the NFL.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by bogart View Post
    You don't see any women playing in the NFL.
    I have met a few that would make good linebackers.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin


  8. #8
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin


  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,772
    Quote Originally Posted by TopDogger View Post
    I've heard something similar today from Lt. Gen.Jerry Boykin. He also touched on there maybe some exceptions to the rule and some women could pass the training. I believe more likely the military will lower the standards for women. Should the US go into combat against a hard enemy force like the US faced during the Korean War or Vietnam, this is going to be a disaster.

    The Marines just put a couple of hand-picked women into the Officer's Infantry Basic and both failed. So much for the exceptions without lowering the standards.

    Another issue with Women in combat units is pregnancy. How do you deal with that?

    How about the draft and selective service? Do women need to register and will they be drafted into combat units?

    What next? They already have gays in the military. Does the US Military start accepting illegal aliens?

  10. #10
    What next? They already have gays in the military. Does the US Military start accepting illegal aliens?

    They have been for years and years taking illegals as soldiers.
    Easy path for citizenship for all who serve.

    I have nothing against either gays or illegals serving.
    As the old saying goes "there are no atheists in foxholes".

    Remember, for a soldier?
    Fighting for ones country is like third or fourth down the list of why he is fighting.

    Yes, already said women can be drafted.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •