Panetta removes ban


#1

It seems that Panetta has just removed the ban on women in combat. This should be REALLY interesting now. A foxhole will really be a “fox” hole! I wonder how many pregnancies will occur in the military now… :no::machineguThings are really goin’ for broke now, aren’t they??


#2

If the woman in question can pass the same PT tests as any man in combat, I really don’t have much of an issue with it. I mean the exact same tests, not a watered down, you shoot from the ladies tee up there test. Yes I can see the other side of the issue very well, that’s why I tossed in the “much” into the first sentence.


#3

I’m not worried about pregnancies. Does anyone know if this allows them into special operations units?


#4

Conditioning levels are already too low for soldiers and this may drag it down some.


#5

If so then I see the physical requirements to attend training being moved to the current recommended scores. In other words, currently the minimum requirements are quite weak and the recommended scores are the de facto minimum requirement.

In my own opinion, if she isn’t hitting the recommended scores then I don’t want her anywhere near my group.


#6

And actually this goes or anyone going into special operations. If I’m busting my back end to destroy the recommended scores then I don’t want someone in my group who is just meeting em


#7

The character of a Nation is revealed in how they treat their women, we are now going to send ours to fight our wars for us.

Sounds like a Nation of lazy, irresponsible Takers who are not concerned with such prehistoric concepts as chivalry, responsibility or the meaning behind traditions like “women and children to safety first”.

We just keep digging the hole of destruction deeper.


#8

Agree with tperkins and BOP: if the conditioning and expectations are the same - not worried.


#9

What level of involvment do you think women should be allowed?


#10

Helping in the effort to defend the Nation in every way short of active combat duty, and “responsible for” is the term I would use in place of “allowed”.

This policy has served us well for our entire history before today, now we are following in the footsteps of Nations like France.

As in all things, if we do as they do we will become what they have become and we should expect to get what they get.


#11

Women play vital roles in the development and sustaining of civil society. Their most important job (sorry ladies!) is to raise children as moral and decent citizens. Women have been lead to believe that they “can do anything a man can do” from the early 60’s women’s lib movement–I was actually a part of that for a short time. Yeah…I burned my bra. But, learned very quickly that the movers and shakers of the women’s movement were exploiting women just as much (sometimes more) than the men they claimed were exploiting them. I learned that I was being told what to think and how to think. It was even evident in some of the women’s magazines! (There was one women’s magazine that had a section on who deserved a carrot (good), a stick (bad) or an ok.) I quickly cancelled my subscription.

Anyway, women have lost their way today. Many of them live lives of constantly having to prove something to the world–particularly men and other women. To deny that we have differences physically and otherwise, is to deny our very nature. Women are not made for combat. There may be those few who are, but they are not the majority. Women, in their quest for “equality” put other lives in danger in order to make a point. Today women are told that we have the supreme choice over what we do with our bodies. What we are not willing to recognize is that we DO NOT have the supreme choice over anyone else’s body–the unborn human child. We buy into the mantra of “my body, my choice” but we fail to understand (or recognize) that choices must be made BEFORE another human life is involved.

Women have been systematically conned for the past 50 years to believe the lie that in order for us to find the elusive goddess of equality, we must ignore who and what we are. I have no problem with women serving in the armed forces. However, I often question how wise it is for a woman with children to go off to war in a foreign land. For what purpose?

I remember watching a documentary years ago when women were insisting that they can be just as effective fighter pilots as men (I don’t remember if it was the Air Force or the Navy). It turns out that there had been so many accidents and potential tragedies with women attempting to navigate those fighter jets. It was reporte finally that one woman lost her life and almost caused the death of another fighter pilot because she could not physically handle a fighter jet. I’m sure that this report was not isolated. I think allowing women into combat is stupid and has the potential to devastate our military.


#12

It should. They’ll still have to pass the schools.


#13

You need to think along the path though.

What happens when liberals can’t do what they want? They sue. If they can’t accomplish what they want legislatively, they go through the courts, or in this case, they get a politician in a position to dictate.

This will lead to lowered standards, not higher standards for women.

Watch and see.

This is the same as when the Marine Corps had to lower their test score requirements because they weren’t getting in enough recruits.


#14

Classical Teacher; EXCELLNT POST!

And along with it, we cannot ignore man’s role.
Men are wired - at least those w/a moral compass - to protect women. Women in combat will be a distraction, and distractions are not good for discipline or winning wars.

Consider, too, the enemy, and how it treats women who aren’t the ‘enemy.’ How do you think they’re going to treat women who are, once captured?

OTOH, men of western civilization cannot bear to hear women scream in agony.
There go all our military secrets. (If there are any left, that is.)

Aside from all that, my question is, why did Panetta do this just now on his way out of office? The timing’s a little odd, if you ask me.


#15

If the person in my foxhole cannot carry me to safety, should I become unable to carry myself, they should not be there.
I saw a female Captain on TV this AM and she was saying how she washed out physically.

She said that she went through rigorous combat training and she endured “weight loss” and “muscle atrophy” and suffered from polycystic ovarian syndrome which resulted in infertility. “It’s the type of combat environment these days is very strenuous and I was only doing a portion of what our infantry brothers do,” said Petronio.Female Marine Tells Fox & Friends That Women Should Not Serve In Combat Role In Military | Mediaite


#16

Once more, we are putting the military (and our nation’s well-being) at the mercy of a social experiment.


#17

I just posted a news article that N. Korea is threatening the U.S. with nuclear missles. It seems odd that Panetta, just yesterday, decided to make this decision regarding women in combat.

Also, I hadn’t thought about the risks of female POWs in the hands of the enemy. This social experiment and an attempt to placate a certain portion of women is further putting our country at grave risk.


#18

Count on it.

Do you not find the timing of this awfully odd, as do C.T. and I?

When you find yourself asking “why”, the general rule of thumb, as all know, is to, 'follow the money.'
Speculating, I could come up with several scenarios.
I bet you, too.
'Tis curious, though.


#19

I haven’t been in the military for a number of years now … (forty three actually) and what is going on with today’s armed forces is a tragedy!

I can’t imagine how anyone can believe that this is a good idea!

Men naturally have the instinct to want to protect women and just because they are in uniform doesn’t negate that!

In a firefight … I can imagine the scenario where I would have too much of my attention focused on ‘protecting’ the woman next to me than what I should actually be focusing on!

Gays, Muslims and Women in combat … What’s next!?


#20

Irrelevancy at best and Tyranny at worst.