In response to:

Soldier Girl Blues

calhoun211 Wrote: Jan 30, 2013 10:25 AM
If a women can carry a wounded 180 lb. solider 500 yards to a medic then and only then should they be given a chance to go through infantry training school.
McD2004 Wrote: Jan 30, 2013 10:44 AM
I'm a woman and was in the military and "yes" I could carry a 180 lb person 500 yards (we're trained how - so not a good argument). The real test is not in the strength or weakness of a woman since only those who can meet the rigorous physical standards would supposedly be accepted. The real test is how will a man handle watching a female be tortured by gang-rape or worse. The real test is how will the stressful situation of combat prevent at least one of the men from "falling in love" with the woman with whom he serves or v/v. There will be exceptions to those who aren't ruled by their hormones, but in reality, sex is the military's second-favorite pastime. If they were honest, it's their first-favorite pastime and military is second.
Darkness Fish Wrote: Jan 30, 2013 12:37 PM
These are the real reasons why women in combat is a bad idea.

Kudos to you on your strength, btw, but the strength argument is a good argument (just not the best argument), you happen to be an exception and I'm willing to bet you really had to work your tail off to get to that point, probably a lot more than a man of a similar build.
stangerinmyownland Wrote: Jan 30, 2013 12:52 PM
I think you are right. The Navy's experiment on carriers worked out well, didn't it. When I was back from RVN in and back in the States, I served with women in an admin company. If a WAC wanted an early out, all she had to do was get pregnant. Not a big deal, but it sort of highlights the difference in the sexes. What to do with pregnant soldiers? When do they leave a combat unit, immediately, 3 mos, 6 mos? Are the unborn children to be protected? And why does a combat unit have to deal with this. Young men and young women should not be left in the same room unsupervised or we will have puppies.
Wolfgang6 Wrote: Jan 30, 2013 2:03 PM
But the politicians are counting on passing the buck for solving all the problems down to the junior leaders - the Captains and Lieutenants, Buck Sergeants and Staff Sergeants. Any problems - they will be the scapegoats for failing to exercise "leadership." [sarcasm intended]

What if, during the presidential campaign, Mitt Romney had accused President Obama of wanting to let servicewomen serve in combat? After all, Obama had hinted as much in 2008. What would Obama's response have been?

My hunch is that he would have accused Romney of practicing the "politics of division" or some such and denied it.

In any case, wouldn't an open debate have been better than putting women into combat by fiat? You'd think the folks who are always clamoring for a "national conversation" on this, that and the other thing would prefer to make a sweeping change after, you...