In response to:

Women in Combat Spells Trouble

David238 Wrote: Jan 25, 2013 2:29 PM
I'm an Army veteran and I have no problem with women in the Army, but some common sense needs to be used. Some military roles don't require the same physical readiness, and I can understand having different standards for women than men when they are serving in different capacities. However, if women expect to serve in the same roles as men then they should also have to meet the same standards --- currently this is not the case. You may need to march 20 miles with 50 lbs. of gear on your back, and if you can't do it then you put everyone's lives at risk. If 2 women out of 100 can make it then it isn't worth trying to accommodate them.
David238 Wrote: Jan 25, 2013 2:34 PM
BTW, I blame the Joint Chiefs of Staff for allowing Panetta/Obama to make this change. The Joint Chiefs could have objected, and that is their job to object when it affects military readiness, They didn't object. They supported the changes. They are more interested in their own careers than they are in the safety of the troops and in the safety of our nations.

MIke274 Wrote: Jan 25, 2013 2:57 PM
Are these the same Joint Chiefs that didn't know they had a radical Muslim in the Army which shot up Ft Hood and killed a lot of innocent unarmed soldiers? It is too bad we don't have Stormin Norman around anymore. The present lineup sucks.
With little discussion or fanfare, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta lifted the ban on women in combat that has been in effect for as long as there has been a U.S. military. Feminists and some women serving in the military are applauding the move as a victory for equal rights. They claim that justice requires nothing short of opening all positions to females, regardless of the consequences to combat effectiveness, unit cohesion, or military readiness, factors whose importance they minimize in any event.

What is perhaps most striking about Secretary Panetta's action is that it reverses the combat exclusion policy that...