In response to:

Women in Combat

John4199 Wrote: Feb 06, 2013 1:07 PM
Most of your "females have done this and that" have nothing to do with ground combat. Being attacked and defending one's self is not the same thing as conducting combat operations day after day. In virtually every historical example that you can come up with, women have only been pressed into full combat roles when it was absolutely necessary and as a last resort for national survival. As soon as possible they get removed from those roles. The Israelis do not use women in front-line infantry units. The Russians have still not recovered from the massive loss of females due to the Russian Revolution and WWII.
mhood175 Wrote: Feb 06, 2013 1:40 PM
You forgot to include the 9 and 10 year old BOYS that were gathered up and given guns to fight in the front line along with those that had not been killed. Russia did it because of their tremendous losses and so did Hitler in Germany. So, it's OK for little boy children to fight in combat but not full grown females? Get real - no one said they would pull the same identical duty as a man, it is a given they would be assigned to duties they CAN qualify for - that is called 'COMMON SENSE' - something some of you could use!

A senior Defense Department official said the ban on women in combat should be lifted because the military's goal is "to provide a level, gender-neutral playing field." I'd like to think the goal of the military should be to have the toughest, meanest fighting force possible. But let's look at "gender-neutral playing field."

The Army's physical fitness test in basic training is a three-event physical performance test used to assess endurance. The minimum requirement for 17- to 21-year-old males is 35 pushups, 47 situps and a two-mile run in 16 minutes, 36 seconds or less. For females of the same age,...