I was just curious, since this is a predominantly male group, how do you feel about women in the military?
...And while women now serve on combat ships, fly combat missions and conduct door-to-door searches through dangerous Iraqi neighborhoods, limits remain. They're still restricted from infantry units, armor and field artillery companies in wartime...
I'm all for equal rights and all, but women do not belong in combat or combat units. I was in the last segregated airborne class in 1990. they had to change the standards because women could not meet the minimum requirement that men were forced to adhere to, which ended up lowering the standard for men, thereby weakening the pool of graduates.
I know Israel has women trained in combat arms, and in combat units, but that is mostly out of necessity and as part of their policy that everyone serves. my problem with it in the US Army is that as much as women want to do everything men do, there are honestly things they cannot do or cannot handle like men. it may seem mean, it may sound sexist, but it is true, women are nuturing by nature, men are hunters, and put in the position of kill or be killed I do not think women would react the way men do (sure, they can cut your nuts off, they can play psychological games better than men, they have the killer instinct in business, but that is all different, anyone who has seen combat will tell you) . I have seen some pretty "butch" and mean women in my time, but to be fair, standards would have to be lowered, which in turn weakens our military. Then you have the fact that our society can't handle casualties in the first place, let alone a female. then you add in POWs. what would be the public out cry over a female POW compared to a male. then after all that you add in the psychological aspect. In a combat situation it has been proven that men will react differently if a woman is in danger than another man, thereby jeopardizing not only the mission, but himself and others.
I'm all for women in the military, but they have no place in combat. Plus I'd really hate to see one of them burst an implant or damage some of the cosmetic surgery the military is now paying for (ridiculous, they can't provide adequate medical care to veterans, but they can give girls $3000-5000 in free cosmetic surgery)
I'm sure my hate mail will increase 400%, but it is my view, and if i didn't truly believe in it, i wouldn't post it
Good points...What if they did not lower standards for women -- say, the select few women who could pass the same rigorous tests as men -- do you think they could fight in combat:?:
In a combat situation it has been proven that men will react differently if a woman is in danger than another man, thereby jeopardizing not only the mission, but himself and others
Now I think that if a woman can pass the same standards as men, without lowering the standards, then she is fully capable to serve. Now how to remove the possibility of men reacting different if a woman is in trouble... I'm not sure how to remove that dangerous factor.
Maybe cosmetic surgery would be good in that case to turn her into a wildebeast! Hey, if she wants to serve that bad... she probably wouldn't care! ;)
In a combat situation it has been proven that men will react differently if a woman is in danger than another man, thereby jeopardizing not only the mission, but himself and others
True, but if the military can train women to pass those tests at the same standards as men, and if they can train people (including women) to kill without blinking an eye(which I cannot in my wildest dreams imagine doing), then I believe they could train men to react the same to a fallen female comrade as they would to a fallen male comrade.
However, this does not answer the woman POW issue and what kind of outcry that would be. . .although, remember Jessica Lynch? I think that women POWs are already part of our military, whether they are allowed in combat or not.
All good points capper but the problem is, your points won't change until society has become used to the idea of women in combat and that won't change until more women are in combat. It's a catch 22.
I agree 100% though on the physical aspect. The tests were made as tough as they were for a reason. To groom the ultimate fighting machine. The reason hasn't changed so why should the tests?
As far as whether or not a male soldier can hack a female soldier being wounded or captured, maybe they ought to make that a part of the test. If you can't treat the woman fighting next to you as a soldier then maybe you don't deserve to be in the elite. Regular infantry? Same deal. You can't hack it, you're out. The same goes for women. Can't hack seeing Billy Bob shot? You're out.
I don't think the military should have to change their standards to allow women into combat but I do think they need to change their training techniques. If that includes changing boot camp length for women, then do it. Whatever it takes to make them prepared.
It's going to happen so everyone might as well get used to it and the military better get ready.
Like everything else in our society you know that there would be a huge problem. What is the standard? what is a fair standard? According to whom? what if a girl is almost good enough but can't pass the tests? Our society vcannot accept failure or being put into diffewrent groups, if one girl can make it and five can't then the standard is "too strict". All the physical issues aside. i think a bigger issue is the phycological ones i brought up. There are some burly "Shems" out there, ones that could kick my ass, but women in general are nuturers like i said, while men are the hunters. It is pretty much world/species wide.
I don't want to get into a big debate on the issue, but look at our society, and look at how people are. do you honestly think they could just set a standard and stick with it? (In airborne school the exact thing i was talking about happened, they had to lower the standard for women, then had to lower it for everyone
Yep. Never should have happened capper. Training standards are there to keep people alive. Without them, people die. The problem with the question of who's standards is that it's not a who but a what. The military shouldn't have to do what society asks in regards to it's training. Society should know better. Women should have been trained up to the standards not the standards brought down. If the woman can't pass, she can't pass. She washes out. What they should have done is extend the training time for women, not lower the standards. Anything can be accomplished given time.
I voted that women can be in combat if they pass the same tests as the men. As long as women in the military can shoot/run/etc as good as men, I don't see too many problems.
There are a few bad things for women in the military even if they made it though... female POWs risk getting raped, etc. etc. Males can still get their nuts chopped off though... Some chick in Vietnam did that to American soldiers and made them run back towards their base, but they would always bleed to death before they got back, of course screaming falling in puddles of blood... gross stuff, but she was killed thanks to Carlos Hathcock :D . If anyone hasn't read Marine Sniper, it's a good book, you should go read it.
A10, male POWs get raped and torturted to.
As far as great military books.
1. The Art of War (The best book ever written)
2. 5 Years To Freedom (True Story)
3. The 5 Fingers (True Story)
4. We were soldiers (True Story)
5. Andersonville (True Story)
6. Bravo Two Zero (True Story)
If you like to read, these are all great books, not just about war, but about sacrifice, service, pride, honor, and the human spirit
We used to call Carlos "Half-Cocked". Very, very messed up individual.
As to what people do in war, sometimes its hard to explain, people have become numb to graphic violence and death, tv makes it so easy and santary. War makes ordinary people monsters. I almost want to laugh about ABU GHRAIB, it is wrong and they should be punished, but if you saw what some people/countriews do, that is nothing.
People want to piss and moan when 60 minutes shows some pics of interrogation, but the outcry isn't nearly as bad as when someone is beheaded or tortured by an Arab.
I still think Marine Sniper is a great book and I don't see what was wrong with Carlos, until after he got seriously burned.
I watched the movie We Were Soldiers, if the book you're referring to is We Were Soldiers, Once and Young. I'm sure the movie is different but o well.
I saw some movie about the first gulf war about captured Americans that were beaten, then some of them escaped, it might've been what you were talking about.
First of all, the book is "We were Soldier.....once, and young" it is what the movie is based on, and both are based on a true story.
and no, what ever you are talking about is not what I was referring to, Bravo Two Zero is a true story (No Chuck Norris, Jean Claude, or Steven Seagal) of the moast highly decorated SAS scout team since the Boehr (sp) war, it ia teaching point at the Spec Ops SERE high risk school at Camp Rowe, NC. (The school wwas founded by and named after Nick Rowe, from 5yrs to Freedom).
Hey, if she wants to serve that bad... she probably wouldn't care! ;)
