NationStates Jolt Archive

Despite Pressure, Bush Vows 'No Women In Combat'
Washington Times ( JAN. 12)

President Bush's policy on women in ground combat takes just four words to articulate: "No women in combat." Despite extended tours of duties in Iraq for soldiers and an Army examination of women's roles, the president told editors and reporters of The Washington Times yesterday in an interview in the Oval Office that he has no intention of sending women into ground combat, a mission for which they are banned under Pentagon policy. Some retired generals and commentators have called on the president to increase significantly the 150,000 troops in Iraq. Mr. Bush said he is relying on his generals not the pundits to dictate the makeup of the force. "The troop size in Iraq is not driven here in the White House," he said. "It is driven by the decisions and the recommendations the recommendations of John Abizaid and Gen. George Casey.


My personal thoughts on this are that anyone who can actually perform the job and who wants to do it should be allowed to do so. The major drawback I can see is that terrorists would have a field day with any American female either captured or killed. If captured, I can see a vidieo of her being gang-raped and tortured. If killed, I can see mutliation and desecration of her corpse.

Your thoughts on all of this???

As with the civil world … if you can do the job … and do it good you should get it (or in the case of limited jobs … do it better)

Your thoughts on all of this???

Any soldier knows the risk of getting captured, even if she is female.

I think those who won't allow women into all roles of the military for which they can meet the overall requirements are sexist and backwards.

It's a rather ignorant statement.

Women are already in combat. Not in all combat units, but certainly in a combat zone, and certainly with weapons, and certainly in dangerous areas full of explosives and insurgents.

In modern war, there isn't a rear area that is "safe" for women.

Women can already be in artillery units. They can be military police (which seem to be in demand in Iraq).

They just can't be infantry, Special Forces, or anyone in armored vehicles.

But they're everywhere in Iraq.

He can hardly let a woman do what he wouldn't could he?

Fight for his country?

Men get raped, too.

Men get raped, too.

Shhh, it doesn't happen if they pretend it doesn't. ;)

Why is it always "won't someone think of the children?" "Women and children first." What about the fully-grown dudes? Why doesn't somebody ever think about them?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all about gender equality. I'm all about women opening their own doors, pulling out their own chairs, buying their own dinners, being paid equal wages, changing their own oil, and being competitive in the workplace. I just don't get why we're clinging to some nineteenth-century notion that war is somehow "man business" and that dudes are the only ones capable of (or fit for) fighting and dying in the trenches?

And what about Lynch, a woman soldier who was taken captive? Were there gang-rape videos? As for torture and decapitation videos, male prisoners are just as capable of being tortured and killed, and their bodies are just as capable of being mutilated.

It just seems a little backwards is all.

I think women should be allowed in active combat if they want to go. It's been my experience that women who drive buses are tougher than the men who drive them. Why? Because they have to be. The same would probably hold true for the women. They'd have to be tougher to be able to be effective in combat.

The major drawback I can see is that terrorists would have a field day with any American female either captured or killed. If captured, I can see a vidieo of her being gang-raped and tortured. If killed, I can see mutliation and desecration of her corpse.

Your thoughts on all of this???

Considering women have already been in combat and I know of one that even went hand to hand(the black gal in that supply group that was ambushed). They were pounding on her and at one point her helmet flew off. The stopped when they recognized she was a she.

Sure there could be some terrorists that are animals and would do what you have suggested. However, it being on the tele? Really doubt it.

The Religion says that touching a female is a big NONO. They would loose any support of the people if they did that.....

i love the smell of equality

I think women should stay at home in the kitchen where they belong. Gays should be in the military, though. They can convert all the evil muslims into prissies who won't be able to fight.

/sarcasm, all of it :rolleyes:

No nation on this planet allows women in combat and there's a reason. Any woman in a combat unit endangers the whole unit and its mission because of total breakdown of discipline and chain of command. Israel initially allowed women in combat in 1948 but then quickly ended the practice when the destructive effects became obvious. It is a well known fact that when a woman is present in combat, men around her no longer follow orders and pursue their mission but fight solely to protect her. This protective instinct kicks in despite all the feminist brainwashing. Men are not entirely rational in the presence of women (y'all probably know the joke about God giving Adam a brain and a penis but not enough blood to use both simultaneously), and therefore women should not be involved in situation where rationality is vital.

No nation on this planet allows women in combat and there's a reason. Any woman in a combat unit endangers the whole unit and its mission because of total breakdown of discipline and chain of command. Israel initially allowed women in combat in 1948 but then quickly ended the practice when the destructive effects became obvious. It is a well known fact that when a woman is present in combat, men around her no longer follow orders and pursue their mission but fight solely to protect her. This protective instinct kicks in despite all the feminist brainwashing. Men are not entirely rational in the presence of women (y'all probably know the joke about God giving Adam a brain and a penis but not enough blood to use both simultaneously), and therefore women should not be involved in situation where rationality is vital.

Since this is a problem with men, perhaps it is men who should be restricted from certain duties. After all, they are the ones who have a problem with it.

Edit: Obviously this is sarcasm. However, the stereotype that all men will stop following orders just because there is a woman involved is idiotic. For most men, if they have been equally trained alongside women, they respect that woman just as they do the males with them and know that everyone can equally take care of themselves (and equally needs assistance).

Yes, there are good reasons for an against.

But, you can't just leave them out because of male ignorance, or sexist beliefs. They should be allowed to be in direct combat in all units.

It would be a pilot project to see if it would work. If it does, then go ahead with full integration.

I have no problem with women in the military. However how many would be able to do the same basic training as men and not the toned down "female" version? If females can do the job with no breaks in any manner other than getting tampons, whats the problems here?


I would be willing to bet that getting your head choped off is worse than getting raped as well. That arguement that women would get raped is stupid, its war of course your dead meat if you are captured by militants....

Quote from Kryozerkia

"But, you can't just leave them out because of male ignorance, or sexist beliefs. They should be allowed to be in direct combat in all units.

It would be a pilot project to see if it would work. If it does, then go ahead with full integration."


That's a good idea. There's always the option of all-female units, too. They could at least TRY something instead of just appearing like they're stubborn and biggotted.

Could it be like an all-hottie pilot combat unit? Cause then all the enemy combatants and maybe me would be like: "I've been a bad soldier and I need to be punished."

They'd have to be tougher to be able to be effective in combat.
Its not like modern combat is hammering each other with heavy swords and axes anymore while sweating in encumbering metal armour. How does a woman have to be tougher in order to use an assault rifle or chuck a grenade? Effectiveness is more of a sure-hand thing nowadays.

Its not like modern combat is hammering each other with heavy swords and axes anymore while sweating in encumbering metal armour. How does a woman have to be tougher in order to use an assault rifle or chuck a grenade? Effectiveness is more of a sure-hand thing nowadays.

Well, you have to be tough enough to carry 65-85 pounds of crap on your back, because you don't always have a vehicle. You have to be able to put up with wearing a hot and stuffy suit of plastic armor instead of metal armor. You have to be able to shoot, throw and run like hell for several miles if needed. Any woman who can pass the male PT standards should be allowed in combat if that's the job she wants. But this whole, "guy must be able to do 40 push ups and girl only needs 18" has to go if the woman wants combat arms.

I served with two women in 1991 that responded well under fire. Our team didn't freak out to protect them and they didn't go cry somewhere. So, I'm all for it:

PROVIDING SHE CAN PASS THE MALE PT STANDARDS.

And that about sums it up.

Like a friend of mine asked … “I wonder what it would have been like for the girls if there were any in Easy Company” *us military*

If they passed the training their respective nation's army requires, they earned it; they proved they are capable. Are there women in the American armed forces? Yes. So, is Bush saying that military training is faulty, and worthless? Would that then not invalidate all the men as well?

Provided the training is equal for both sexes, then if they can get in, they earned it. If they can't, they're not cut out for it. They understand all the risks when they sign up. Of course, Bush doesn't realise this, as he believes all women are as stupid and dizzy as... well, him, actually.

Gender roles and sexist conditioning not withstanding, women are just as competent as men in many physical arenas, and the only psychological disadvantages they would have would be those instilled in them by our gender oriented culture. I would think, however, that any woman that enlists and passes basic training would have the gumption to overcome those barriers.

Could it be like an all-hottie pilot combat unit? Cause then all the enemy combatants and maybe me would be like: "I've been a bad soldier and I need to be punished."
To which they would all reply "Noooooo!" because they're all sadits. Besides which, they would already be pissed off at you 'cause you forgot Poland! :headbang:

I served with two women in 1991 that responded well under fire. Our team didn't freak out to protect them and they didn't go cry somewhere. So, I'm all for it.
I've known several women who could easily have held up under the same as, or even worse conditions than, male soldiers. As a matter of fact, one of them kicked my ass, but that's another story! :D

I remember watching a documentary (sorry, can't remember the name - it was a BBC production though) about men and women being put through the standard Special Forces physical training. At the start the men were doing better than the women - physical strength etc, but towards the end the women caught up and finally surpassed them. The men had major fatigue problems, and were dropping like flies, apparently the fact that women store fat more efficiently prevented them from burning out so quickly.

It might take a bit more time for a woman to build up the muscle to carry heavy packs etc, but once they can, what's to stop them? Maybe our tits get in the way of our rifles or something...?

PMS may even be an advantage!

PMS may even be an advantage!

Indeed. Once in a while, women temporarily become unstoppable killing machines :D.

I remember watching a documentary (sorry, can't remember the name - it was a BBC production though) about men and women being put through the standard Special Forces physical training. At the start the men were doing better than the women - physical strength etc, but towards the end the women caught up and finally surpassed them. The men had major fatigue problems, and were dropping like flies, apparently the fact that women store fat more efficiently prevented them from burning out so quickly.

It might take a bit more time for a woman to build up the muscle to carry heavy packs etc, but once they can, what's to stop them? Maybe our tits get in the way of our rifles or something...?

PMS may even be an advantage!
Terrorist One: "Omar, I understand we have been given the honor of attacking the first all-female US Infantry Company!"

Terrorist Two: "Achmed, you fool! They're not called 'the PMS Brigade!' for nothing! Allah save us!"

:D

If captured, I can see a vidieo of her being gang-raped and tortured. If killed, I can see mutliation and desecration of her corpse.

Your thoughts on all of this???

If captured by Islamic terrorists, rape is practically guranteed before execution. The Quran says that virgins go to heaven, so unless they know that you have a child or something else that proves that you're NOT a virgin, a rape is pretty much guranteed.

Of course, I don't know how much it matters if they're just going to execute you anyway. Getting raped might be the least of a womans concerns at that point.

If captured by Islamic terrorists, rape is practically guranteed before execution. The Quran says that virgins go to heaven, so unless they know that you have a child or something else that proves that you're NOT a virgin, a rape is pretty much guranteed.

Of course, I don't know how much it matters if they're just going to execute you anyway. Getting raped might be the least of a womans concerns at that point.

*cough* Maybe they wouldn't rape her for that very reason. Given that Islamic heros are supposed to get some huge number of virgins at their service, why would they want to limit the available number of virgins? Perhaps they would like being served by some cute virgin infidel.

<Angel>: Allah weeps, Mohammed. Despite your great service, we regret there is a shortage of virgins. You only get ten virgins to satiate your every desire.

(Do Islamic women really regard this adolescent male teen's fantasy as desirous to enter?)

[/silliness]

Well, you have to be tough enough to carry 65-85 pounds of crap on your back, because you don't always have a vehicle. You have to be able to put up with wearing a hot and stuffy suit of plastic armor instead of metal armor. You have to be able to shoot, throw and run like hell for several miles if needed. Any woman who can pass the male PT standards should be allowed in combat if that's the job she wants. But this whole, "guy must be able to do 40 push ups and girl only needs 18" has to go if the woman wants combat arms.

I served with two women in 1991 that responded well under fire. Our team didn't freak out to protect them and they didn't go cry somewhere. So, I'm all for it:

PROVIDING SHE CAN PASS THE MALE PT STANDARDS.

And that about sums it up.

As a female, I would have to say that I wholeheartedly agree. As long as the standards are not unfairly skewed (aka pumped up beyond where they need to be) simply to exclude women -which I don't believe they are, any woman who cannot pass the stated prerequisites (especially in special forces) should not be positioned there. However, any woman who does pass them (and there are many who can) should be able to hold that position.

Indeed. Once in a while, women temporarily become unstoppable killing machines :D.

And women in close contact with one another tend to get on the same cycle....

=)

Bush is even worse than I thought. I knew he was homophobic and imperialist, but I didn't realize that he was also sexist.

The Religion says that touching a female is a big NONO. They would loose any support of the people if they did that.....
The Qu'ran also prohibits the torture and execution of prisoners, the murder of civilians, and racial/ethnic discrimination. These terrorists don't follow parts of the Qu'ran which inconvenience them.

This isn't "President Bush's" policy. Women haven't be permitted to serve in combat during all of the United States' two centuries-plus of history. While it is certainly a topic worthy of debate, to blame President Bush is absurd in the extreme.

This isn't "President Bush's" policy. Women haven't be permitted to serve in combat during all of the United States' two centuries-plus of history. While it is certainly a topic worthy of debate, to blame President Bush is absurd in the extreme.

Notice that the reference was specifically about Bush deciding that women would *still* not be allowed in combat duty. Bush is the current leader of the armed services, he has made a decision, therefore it is his policy.

No nation on this planet allows women in combat and there's a reason. Any woman in a combat unit endangers the whole unit and its mission because of total breakdown of discipline and chain of command. Israel initially allowed women in combat in 1948 but then quickly ended the practice when the destructive effects became obvious. It is a well known fact that when a woman is present in combat, men around her no longer follow orders and pursue their mission but fight solely to protect her. This protective instinct kicks in despite all the feminist brainwashing. Men are not entirely rational in the presence of women (y'all probably know the joke about God giving Adam a brain and a penis but not enough blood to use both simultaneously), and therefore women should not be involved in situation where rationality is vital.
There were some 'protectivness' issues during the Israeli War of Independance[and the Suez Crisis], but the problem was not nearly so dire as you suggest -- indeed, if it had been, the Israeli state would not today exist! Israeli women fought with bravery and distinction before the creation of the State of Israel, to protect their kibbutzum from Arab terrorists, and they continued to do so in the Israeli Defense Forces after 1947. Indeed, the State of Israel remains the only country in the world to conscript women! Make no mistake, Israeli Jewish women are some of the toughest in the world.

Notice that the reference was specifically about Bush deciding that women would *still* not be allowed in combat duty. Bush is the current leader of the armed services, he has made a decision, therefore it is his policy.
He is the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces, but it is not his job to set policy for the Armed Forces. Major policy changes require his approval, but make no mistake -- if the Pentagon bigwigs wanted to change the policy, it would be changed.

And the situation would be exactly the same if Kerry had been elected.

There were some 'protectivness' issues during the Israeli War of Independance[and the Suez Crisis], but the problem was not nearly so dire as you suggest -- indeed, if it had been, the Israeli state would not today exist! Israeli women fought with bravery and distinction before the creation of the State of Israel, to protect their kibbutzum from Arab terrorists, and they continued to do so in the Israeli Defense Forces after 1947. Indeed, the State of Israel remains the only country in the world to conscript women! Make no mistake, Israeli Jewish women are some of the toughest in the world.
Sound like MY kinna wimmin! :D

Just thinking about the differences in physical training between men and women. The average woman may not be as physically strong as the average man, but they might be able to make up for it in other areas. While physical strength is still important in todays military, other things, even in combat, might make up for a lack of brute strength. I saw a program on the Discovery channel where they were doing some comparisons. They had a group of male soldiers and a group of female soldiers each attempted to move a tank track up a hill. The males struggled to forcibly carry the whole thing at once. The females dimantled it and moved it up piece by piece. Sometimes the fact that you are used to working with less actual strength makes you more likely to find other solutions.

Could it be like an all-hottie pilot combat unit? Cause then all the enemy combatants and maybe me would be like: "I've been a bad soldier and I need to be punished."
:D Have you seen Airbats TTS 118?

Many of the best sharpshooters in the world are women. It is a fact that women are better shooters than men. Female shooters have steader hands, better breath control, and slightly keener eyesight.

Some people say that women aren't as violent as men, that they are more passive. It is true that women are slower to commit acts of violence out of anger, but this only shows that they generally have more self control than men. On the other hand, women are capible of great viciousness, ruthlessness, and cruelity. It is just that they are usually more subtle about it.

Having watched Xena, Buffy and the Tomb Raider movie and havng played Resident Evil, I can honestly say that I don't understand how anyone in today's modern American culture can not think that women can be superior warriors when compared to men.

Personally, on the battlefield, I'd let the ladies go first. It is not a matter of antiquated chivalry. It is a mater of knowing that the first person is more likely to get shot at and I know several women who could outfight me.



An interesting tidid of trivia: Dr. Ruth was a sniper in the Israeli militia.
If you met her, she could cure your sexual dysfunctions or kill you at her whim.

He is the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces, but it is not his job to set policy for the Armed Forces. Major policy changes require his approval, but make no mistake -- if the Pentagon bigwigs wanted to change the policy, it would be changed.

And the situation would be exactly the same if Kerry had been elected.

So he is COmmander-in-Chief, but it is not his job to be the commander?

In other words, the president is nothing but a figurehead with no actual authority?

Interesting.

As for the Kerry comment, I don't really care. It is poor policy no matter who is currently in charge.

In other words, the president is nothing but a figurehead with no actual authority?

Wrong. The Commander in Chief has actual authority. He can order troops into combat anywhere at any time. He also has the authority to fire generals as Truman fired McArthur.

So he is COmmander-in-Chief, but it is not his job to be the commander?

In other words, the president is nothing but a figurehead with no actual authority?

Interesting.

The President of the United States' Constitutionally-mandated position as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces has a number of very real implications, procedural and policy consequences. However, POTUS is not the CinC of the armed forces in the same respect a general is the commander of a division. His authority is very real and very relevent, but he doesn't write policy for the armed forces.

I don't understand how anyone in today's modern American culture can not think that women can be superior warriors when compared to men.

Personally, on the battlefield, I'd let the ladies go first. It is not a matter of antiquated chivalry. It is a mater of knowing that the first person is more likely to get shot at and I know several women who could outfight me.

An interesting tidid of trivia: Dr. Ruth was a sniper in the Israeli militia.
If you met her, she could cure your sexual dysfunctions or kill you at her whim.
"Superior?" Hmm. I don't know about that, although I will say that each sex brings its own unique style and capabilities to the game. As I said earlier, I know of at least one woman who could probably kick my ass! :D

It's true that many women are excellent sharpshooters, but even some of the best don't have that certain mindset that would equip them for battle ... and the same thing is true of men, although perhaps to a lesser degree.

As to Dr. Ruth ... verrrry interesting! LOL! :)

Don't get me wrong, I'm all about gender equality. I'm all about women opening their own doors, pulling out their own chairs, buying their own dinners, being paid equal wages, changing their own oil, and being competitive in the workplace. I just don't get why we're clinging to some nineteenth-century notion that war is somehow "man business" and that dudes are the only ones capable of (or fit for) fighting and dying in the trenches?

It just seems a little backwards is all.

couldn't agree with you more poland... what about drafting as well? they get to do EVERYTHING and are ENTIRELY equal except when it would come to a draft? only men have to do that? i don't think so. so if anything i think they should establish women should be drafted in the upcoming war since you feminists want absolute equality and everything - right?

It should be noted that women served in combat on both sides during he US Civil War. About 240 women enlisted illegaly by disguising themselves as men. By most accounts, they served with utmost skill and bravery.

However, in one case a female soldier was found out when she went into labor in the field. This is probably the only good reason for excluding women from combat. But, I believe that pregnant women are already prohibited from working in war zones.

http://www.civilwarnews.com/reviews/bookreviews.cfm?ID=491
http://www.civilwarhome.com/womeninuniform.htm

During the WWI, many European countries allowed women to fight on the front lines. Some of these women were highly decorated.

Emilienne Moreau won the Croix de Guerre and the Bristish Red Cross in WWI. She won a second Croix de Guerre in WWII.

http://www.gendergap.com/military/Warriors-2.htm


And lets not forget, the prohibition against women in combat doesn't extend to secret intergalatic wars with parasitic aliens.

I really see nothing unusual with not having women in combat. The concept has been practiced through much of history. Though I do suppose in the age of equal rights that the situation would be much more important to some people. I've heard from a soldier that, from his experience, women aren't able to handle combat as easily.

In other words, women need to meet the male physical AND psychological requirements to be allowed to do such. After that, it will be up to the COs to decide if they want to resist the stigma or not.

We have had this debate before but in a little different context. The first one was the debate over opening up most jobs in the military to women. It came up again over putting women on combat ships, women pilots, and women in combat aircraft.

In all cases, the women did fine. When I served in the military I had women working for me and I worked for women. The problems I had with the women working for me were no different from the problems I had with the men. (i.e. late for duty, drugs, financial, etc.)

I don't think the issue is whether women can do the job in combat. They can. I think the real issue is "Is the American public ready to accept women in a combat role?" I'm not so sure they are.

Oh, my wife who served in the Air Force agrees that women should be allowed to serve in combat if they want to.

I really do not see why women should be treated any differently to men. They have just as much a right to die for their country as men. And I would extend this to conscription too. Such policies must reflect the equal opportunities world we now enjoy.

I really do not see why women should be treated any differently to men. They have just as much a right to die for their country as men. And I would extend this to conscription too. Such policies must reflect the equal opportunities world we now enjoy.
[ Can't believe I'm going to do this ... must control impulse ... Aieee! ] I agree with you. THUD!

Men are not entirely rational in the presence of women (y'all probably know the joke about God giving Adam a brain and a penis but not enough blood to use both simultaneously), and therefore women should not be involved in situation where rationality is vital.
Very few people keep a cool head and stay rational in combat situations. War in itself isn't really the most rational thing to do and soldiers in warzones tend to be rather stressed and prone to breakdowns.

I don't think the issue is whether women can do the job in combat. They can. I think the real issue is "Is the American public ready to accept women in a combat role?" I'm not so sure they are.


The way I see it, in this debate there are two types of men and two types of women.
There are men who are threatened by women who can kill people and there are men who like women who can kill people.
There are women who find killing to be morally reprehensible and there are women who like being able to kill people when necessary.

The women who find killing morally wrong don't have to enlist. The women who want to kill people should be allowed to do so.
The men who are threatened by women who can kill people should get their balls on straight and become more secure with their masculinity.

We men who like women who kill people are the most vocal minority, however, because we hold onto the hope that these amazonian warrior women will turn on us when they are through killing the bad guys and force us to satasify their every sexual desire.

We men who like women who kill people are the most vocal minority, however, because we hold onto the hope that these amazonian warrior women will turn on us when they are through killing the bad guys and force us to satasify their every sexual desire.
One can only hope! :D

I don't think the issue is whether women can do the job in combat. They can. I think the real issue is "Is the American public ready to accept women in a combat role?" I'm not so sure they are.

Bingo

The way I see it, in this debate there are two types of men and two types of women.
There are men who are threatened by women who can kill people and there are men who like women who can kill people.
There are women who find killing to be morally reprehensible and there are women who like being able to kill people when necessary.

The women who find killing morally wrong don't have to enlist. The women who want to kill people should be allowed to do so.
The men who are threatened by women who can kill people should get their balls on straight and become more secure with their masculinity.

We men who like women who kill people are the most vocal minority, however, because we hold onto the hope that these amazonian warrior women will turn on us when they are through killing the bad guys and force us to satasify their every sexual desire.


Uuuuuhhhhh.

No, there are two kinds of people. People who can be socialized and trained to kill people (either they are this way already, or can be taught to do it). And then people who won't kill no matter how much you try to socialize them to do it. A very small minority of people actually and truly object to killing. A larger portion of people don't want to serve in the military, and will say that the reason they don't want to serve is because they don't want to kill or support killing - which is very likely to be untrue.

This is all moot, since the US military is a volunteer force. And, they don't make a secret that you're going to be carrying a gun no matter what you're job is in Iraq.

The way I see it, in this debate there are two types of men and two types of women.
There are men who are threatened by women who can kill people and there are men who like women who can kill people.
There are women who find killing to be morally reprehensible and there are women who like being able to kill people when necessary.

The women who find killing morally wrong don't have to enlist. The women who want to kill people should be allowed to do so.
The men who are threatened by women who can kill people should get their balls on straight and become more secure with their masculinity.

We men who like women who kill people are the most vocal minority, however, because we hold onto the hope that these amazonian warrior women will turn on us when they are through killing the bad guys and force us to satasify their every sexual desire.


So what I get from your post is that there are two types of women

1) don’t like killing
2) will

And for men

1) scared of women who can kill
2) can kill

Problem 1 with these statements ... that there are a group of women who don’t like killing but no equivalent men ...

problem 2 ... that the "draft" work only to take a part of women (taking into account their disposition) but no equivalent for men

How does that seem fair

Which is why I used the qualifier "In this debate" It wasn't an absolute statement.

Despite Pressure, Bush Vows 'No Women In Combat'
Washington Times ( JAN. 12)

President Bush's policy on women in ground combat takes just four words to articulate: "No women in combat." Despite extended tours of duties in Iraq for soldiers and an Army examination of women's roles, the president told editors and reporters of The Washington Times yesterday in an interview in the Oval Office that he has no intention of sending women into ground combat, a mission for which they are banned under Pentagon policy. Some retired generals and commentators have called on the president to increase significantly the 150,000 troops in Iraq. Mr. Bush said he is relying on his generals not the pundits to dictate the makeup of the force. "The troop size in Iraq is not driven here in the White House," he said. "It is driven by the decisions and the recommendations the recommendations of John Abizaid and Gen. George Casey.

Your thoughts on all of this???
[Expletive deleted]!!!! :D

(GW is a sexist SOB, in my opinion.)

Wait. What is all this talk about George W. being the sexiest? I mean, he's kind of old and he walks funny. Granted, I'm not all that great a judge, but I'm secure enough with my masculinity to say that I think somebody like Antonio Banderas is more sexiest.

Maybe we should have a military like the Amazons, where it is warrior women who fight, not men... Then I wouldn't have to think about being drafted, or killed in a war or something. Sounds good to me! :p

seriously, I think that the military should be equal for men and women, based upon physical and mental capabilities, not a persons gender.

women are allowed in many different areas of the army although some areas like the infantry are impossible to add women. the isralis tried it and it failed miserably men often lingered over females rather than achieving the objective the facilities would also have to be redesigned and also a medical fact that not all women are physically able to do the type of exercise for long durations

basically it can stop the success of a mission but americans only care about looking good and finding friends they lost becuase they couldnt read a map


although women can in many casses exceed the ability of men but to be honest if u r a woman y wud u want to get into the infantry

Gays should be in the military, though. They can convert all the evil muslims into prissies who won't be able to fight.
How many did thay "convert" at Abhu-Grabass.

I see the case of allowing no women in combat. They may not be as strong as men are, especially with upper body strength. But I see that becoming less and less applicable as time goes on. Intelligence is now a big part of being a soldier, and anyone has that. Fortunatly, we do see lots of women as officers and such.

It's a rather ignorant statement.

Women are already in combat. Not in all combat units, but certainly in a combat zone, and certainly with weapons, and certainly in dangerous areas full of explosives and insurgents.

In modern war, there isn't a rear area that is "safe" for women.

Women can already be in artillery units. They can be military police (which seem to be in demand in Iraq).

They just can't be infantry, Special Forces, or anyone in armored vehicles.

But they're everywhere in Iraq.

Yeah John is right. Women are right there when the sh-t hits the fan, and they have a weapon. What...they arent goin to shoot back if they are fired upon? I'm sure women have faced combat situations. Like JB said, theres not a hiding spot for the women to run along to and find safety while war is gong on. I myself, am not rushing out to sign up for battle though.

Bush is even worse than I thought. I knew he was homophobic and imperialist, but I didn't realize that he was also sexist.

Personally, I feel that women should be allowed into combat, but I think you are a little too rough on Bush there. The majority of people that count, that is the American political and military elite agree with him on this. The pentagon is overwhelmingly against women in combat, and I think it would have been much more suprising if he said they would be allowed. Not only would he lose the support of many Neo-Cons in the the government and defense industry but he would be widely criticised as a man who compromised the national security of this nation.

Do a websearch on the subject and I am sure you will find many more articles against women in the military than for, which I must admit is a sad state of affairs, but nonetheless the truth.

It is just too bad a Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy wouldn't work here.....I think someone might notice.


ED/ALSO: To my knowledge very few other civilized nations have a different policy on this.

That stupid chauvinistic bastard.

It's all the Christian man's fault.

I'm telling you.

I really don't understand how people are reacting so radically to this...the debate has raged for many years, and the truth of the matter is the otherside has always been winning. I doubt any other president would have said anything different. No, that would risk alienating the military-industrial complex, making things considerably difficult for that politician.

Personal feelings aside, it is time to be realistic. I will thankfully see women in combat in my lifetime, but that is as far as I am willing to speculate.

It is too far from traditional culture to occur so soon in the new millenium.

And, they don't make a secret that you're going to be carrying a gun no matter what you're job is in Iraq.

This is not true. Many CO's have served heroically in non-combatant roles such as medics and chaplains who are not required to carry guns.

That stupid chauvinistic bastard.

It's all the Christian man's fault.

I'm telling you.

WTF, what does that have to do with with anything? You really need to back up your arguements instead of just slinging insults at Christians. It really weakens your arguement when continually ad hominem a group.

Many of the best sharpshooters in the world are women. It is a fact that women are better shooters than men. Female shooters have steader hands, better breath control, and slightly keener eyesight.


While I am not saying they cant be you state it as fact without the facts to back it up

I don't think thats necessarily the case (women shooting better than men.) I think that most woman don't shoot and the ones that do are just really good at it. Not to bellittle female shooting capabilities, (one of our best rifle team members was a female) but I would think that in general, menm would be better shooters because they are more built for upper body strength. Believe me, after holding just a 5 pound rifle for an hour, muscles really begin to protest towards the end. Not to mention an M16.

Am all for equality especially if it halves the chance of my number being picked in the draft.


As to womens combat effectiveness. Would anybody here take on a female cop, but not a male cop?

I don't think thats necessarily the case (women shooting better than men.) I think that most woman don't shoot and the ones that do are just really good at it. Not to bellittle female shooting capabilities, (one of our best rifle team members was a female) but I would think that in general, menm would be better shooters because they are more built for upper body strength. Believe me, after holding just a 5 pound rifle for an hour, muscles really begin to protest towards the end. Not to mention an M16.
You dont do a standing shot when going for acuracy so "holding" the rifle steady is not really an issue for sniper

Am all for equality especially if it halves the chance of my number being picked in the draft.


As to womens combat effectiveness. Would anybody here take on a female cop, but not a male cop?
Yes but I did unarmed combat instruction with cops ... I have an advantage of reach usualy :p

[Expletive deleted]!!!! :D

(GW is a sexist SOB, in my opinion.)

Wait.. hes a sexist for not allowing women to be FORCED to fight in combat and endanger their lives? I guess I missed something there...

Wait.. hes a sexist for not allowing women to be FORCED to fight in combat and endanger their lives? I guess I missed something there...

sex·ism Audio pronunciation of "sexist" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (skszm)
n.

1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.

2 for sure yes ... 1 ... yes

So yes

I pretty much agree with common opinion here. If a woman can perform as capably as a man in a combat situation, then there's no point in not allowing them to fight. Of course, we have to remember the Russian female snipers, tank crews and pilots as well. Didn't they perform as capably as men when fighting the nazis?

Just out of curiosity, don't the British army allow women to fill the exact same role as men? I'm not sure on that, mind.

Yes, but the majority of the military are not made up of snipers. And often times your not in a situation were you can drop into prone, sling on a shoulder strap and train the target. Enemies do not stand there and let you line up on them. And it takes longer to aim in prone than any other position as well. The only advantage to prone is that you are low to the ground so less likely to be seen, but then again you are less likely to see others, esp. if there is any sort of rise in front of you. My point...I don't know. i seem to have ranted on about nothing. :p

Yes, but the majority of the military are not made up of snipers. And often times your not in a situation were you can drop into prone, sling on a shoulder strap and train the target. Enemies do not stand there and let you line up on them. And it takes longer to aim in prone than any other position as well. The only advantage to prone is that you are low to the ground so less likely to be seen, but then again you are less likely to see others, esp. if there is any sort of rise in front of you. My point...I don't know. i seem to have ranted on about nothing. :p
The reason I pointed to snipers is because of your "holding a rifle for an hr" comment ... why would you be aiming a rifle for that long if you are not a sniper?

Wait.. hes a sexist for not allowing women to be FORCED to fight in combat and endanger their lives? I guess I missed something there...
I don't believe anyone should be drafted unless to directly defend the nation. But if we draft one sex, we should draft the other. Equal rights mean equal responsibility.

I don't believe anyone should be drafted unless to directly defend the nation. But if we draft one sex, we should draft the other. Equal rights mean equal responsibility.
I whole-heartedly agree. With equal rights comes equal responsibility.