In response to:

Women in Combat Spells Trouble

JB12345 Wrote: Jan 25, 2013 12:35 PM
I served in the US Army Special Forces; I was on a Strategic Reconnaissance team. Are you telling me that a young woman is willing to sit in a hide site for long periods of time with two guys on high-protein diets? The effort to emplace women in combat units is simply a act of treason that will deteriorate the combat effectiveness and allow the ACLU to make more money off the Department of Defense. The sole purpose of the US Government is to provide security for the United States; all other functions are secondary. Once that security is compromised, the country is lost.
budmotors Wrote: Jan 26, 2013 3:02 PM
Special Mangina. A pawn jumping in front of bullets for 95% who wouldn't do the same for you. You're being used...when they're done w/ you..they'll put in a pine box drapped w/ a flag. Whoopydeedoo. And everybody will go back to their parties and spring breaks. You're working for the devil and you don't even no it.
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...