pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
Women Cleared for Combat
#1
Surprised nobody else brought this up yet.

Quote:The Pentagon formally announced Thursday that it would lift the ban on women serving in combat positions, in one of Leon Panetta's last acts as President Obama's Defense secretary.

"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 in a statement.

The White House also endorsed the decision Thursday morning, as Panetta prepared to brief reporters Thursday afternoon.
The change would open hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs after more than a decade at war.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/...z2Iur9i9yL

Personally I don't like it, not because I don't think that women can do the job I just don't think that they should. That has almost everything to do with my natural 'hard wiring' of wanting to protect the women switch that no doubt some would consider misogynistic, but...whatever.

Since it's lifted though, I say go all the way with it now...require women to register for Selective Service and be eligible for any draft that may ever need to be implemented. Otherwise, it's not really fair that women get to pick if they want to go to war while forcing men to get drafted, especially since the ban on women fighting in the wars is over.

What say the rest of you? Any other misogynists who would rather see the women-folk protected from combat?
Vampire pig man since September 2012
#2
Camper;71453 Wrote:Surprised nobody else brought this up yet.

Quote:The Pentagon formally announced Thursday that it would lift the ban on women serving in combat positions, in one of Leon Panetta's last acts as President Obama's Defense secretary.

"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 in a statement.

The White House also endorsed the decision Thursday morning, as Panetta prepared to brief reporters Thursday afternoon.
The change would open hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs after more than a decade at war.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/...z2Iur9i9yL

Personally I don't like it, not because I don't think that women can do the job I just don't think that they should. That has almost everything to do with my natural 'hard wiring' of wanting to protect the women switch that no doubt some would consider misogynistic, but...whatever.

Since it's lifted though, I say go all the way with it now...require women to register for Selective Service and be eligible for any draft that may ever need to be implemented. Otherwise, it's not really fair that women get to pick if they want to go to war while forcing men to get drafted, especially since the ban on women fighting in the wars is over.

What say the rest of you? Any other misogynists who would rather see the women-folk protected from combat?


Yeah, I'm old fashioned too and don't like it on that side. Having said that I knew some women from the IDF when I was stationed in Germany that I KNOW would have kicked the snot out of most of the men I knew back then. Wink Qualified? Hell yeah! It will shut up some of the extreme feminists, especially when they start bitching about not having any choice but to be out front. Smile
[Image: member955.png]
USAF (1976 -1986) NRA, GOA Anim_sniper2
"The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living." Dan Cofall
#3
Camper;71453 Wrote:Since it's lifted though, I say go all the way with it now...require women to register for Selective Service and be eligible for any draft that may ever need to be implemented. Otherwise, it's not really fair that women get to pick if they want to go to war while forcing men to get drafted, especially since the ban on women fighting in the wars is over.

^^^^^^^^^^^Agree 100 percent with this.

After learning recently about how Israeli women can serve in combat brigades in the Israeli Defense Force, I thought it would not ever happen with U.S. military. But it has, and it's no big deal. IMHO, it was gender discriminatory before to exclude them from combat. If they are strong enough, skilled enough and capable to do the job fighting on the front lines let them do it.
Live Free or Die
#4
I'm not a misogynist...ok, maybe a little, but I think it is complete and total bullshit. No one, man or woman, should be in a public safety or combat position if they cannot meet the exact same identical physical standards. Redundant enough for you? The second they reduce the number of push-ups, sit-ups, weight-lift, body-drag, timed run, etc, troopers will die needlessly in the name of equal rights and political correctness. Again, absolute BULLSHIT!

Same reason women do not belong as firefighters, police or any job that puts themselves, their co-workers and the public at danger because they are not physically equipped to perform at the same physical level of a male.

Then there is the cultural aspect. As a man, would you not worry more about the safety of the female, potentially jeopardizing missions? Chivalry is hard-wired. And what about hygiene? It's gonna smell like a fish factory out there after extended field conditions! And men will be neutered from making macho jokes out in the field, etc., and doing the male bonding necessary to form a cohesive fighting unit. Is America ready for the gang rapes and torture that will happen if captured? Much more likely in a front-line unit. And then sexual tensions and jealousies tearing the unit apart, too. And pregnancy.

The purpose of the military is to break things, blow things up and kill people. Anything that negatively effects this purpose must be minimized or eliminated. This social engineering shit at the top of the list.
[Image: sigban.jpg]

Gman106, proud to be the original "throbbing member" of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
#5
Great news! America should be proud!

Justin
[Image: pafoasig.png]
#6
Gman106;71516 Wrote:No one, man or woman, should be in a public safety or combat position if they cannot meet the exact same identical physical standards. Redundant enough for you? The second they reduce the number of push-ups, sit-ups, weight-lift, body-drag, timed run, etc, troopers will die needlessly in the name of equal rights and political correctness.

Is America ready for the gang rapes and torture that will happen if captured? Much more likely in a front-line unit. And then sexual tensions and jealousies tearing the unit apart, too. And pregnancy.

The purpose of the military is to break things, blow things up and kill people. Anything that negatively effects this purpose must be minimized or eliminated. This social engineering shit at the top of the list.

I think all of these are good valid points. The physical fitness standards should be identical. If I was in the infantry I would not want a woman serving with me in my platoon who made it through an "easier" boot camp with an easier physical fitness training regimen. It would put her life at greater risk, mine and the other soldiers in the platoon.

The realities of war mean women will be raped when they are captured. I don't think liberal Amerika is ready for it.
Live Free or Die
#7
Only potential problem I see is that men might instinctively jeopardize a mission and possibly the lives of multiple soldiers to save one woman.

Oh and as Jon Doe started to point out, they will without a doubt be specifically targeted by terrorists for capture and will surely be raped, at a minimum.
#8
Kind of puts a whole new light on the term "foxhole".
#9
Camper;71453 Wrote:Surprised nobody else brought this up yet.

Quote:The Pentagon formally announced Thursday that it would lift the ban on women serving in combat positions, in one of Leon Panetta's last acts as President Obama's Defense secretary.

"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 in a statement.

The White House also endorsed the decision Thursday morning, as Panetta prepared to brief reporters Thursday afternoon.
The change would open hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs after more than a decade at war.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/...z2Iur9i9yL

Personally I don't like it, not because I don't think that women can do the job I just don't think that they should. That has almost everything to do with my natural 'hard wiring' of wanting to protect the women switch that no doubt some would consider misogynistic, but...whatever.

Since it's lifted though, I say go all the way with it now...require women to register for Selective Service and be eligible for any draft that may ever need to be implemented. Otherwise, it's not really fair that women get to pick if they want to go to war while forcing men to get drafted, especially since the ban on women fighting in the wars is over.

What say the rest of you? Any other misogynists who would rather see the women-folk protected from combat?

if someone signs up for the military whether it's a male or female, they should expect to see combat if the country is at war. if they're not looking forward to it, they shouldn't sign up.

that said, slavery hasn't been abolished in America yet until they abolish the mandatory requirement for men to register for the selective service when they turn 18.

draft = slavery...plain and simple.
[Image: quotes.php]
#10
andrewjs18;71584 Wrote:
Camper;71453 Wrote:Surprised nobody else brought this up yet.


Personally I don't like it, not because I don't think that women can do the job I just don't think that they should. That has almost everything to do with my natural 'hard wiring' of wanting to protect the women switch that no doubt some would consider misogynistic, but...whatever.

Since it's lifted though, I say go all the way with it now...require women to register for Selective Service and be eligible for any draft that may ever need to be implemented. Otherwise, it's not really fair that women get to pick if they want to go to war while forcing men to get drafted, especially since the ban on women fighting in the wars is over.

What say the rest of you? Any other misogynists who would rather see the women-folk protected from combat?

if someone signs up for the military whether it's a male or female, they should expect to see combat if the country is at war. if they're not looking forward to it, they shouldn't sign up.

that said, slavery hasn't been abolished in America yet until they abolish the mandatory requirement for men to register for the selective service when they turn 18.

draft = slavery...plain and simple.


Bitch when there is a live draft. Until there is there is no "slavery."
[Image: member955.png]
USAF (1976 -1986) NRA, GOA Anim_sniper2
"The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living." Dan Cofall






Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  'It was like a tornado had came through'...WALMART CLEARED DURING FOOD STAMP PANIC Pocketprotector 9 999 10-15-2013, 10:47 AM
Last Post: kadar
  Women And Hispanics To Claim Their $1.33 Billion In “Discrimination Payouts middlefinger 10 1,183 02-15-2013, 02:44 AM
Last Post: Customloaded
  Angela Merkel, Hillary Named ‘Most Powerful Women’ das 0 806 11-25-2012, 11:11 PM
Last Post: das
  ‘It’s a crisis for Quebec women’ (socialized medicine) andrewjs18 19 2,019 11-15-2012, 10:49 AM
Last Post: kadar
  Obama says he has lead, as poll shows Romney ahead and gaining among women middlefinger 13 1,265 10-26-2012, 06:47 AM
Last Post: halftrack



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.