In response to:

Women in Combat: Felony Stupid

RichardsKY Wrote: Feb 18, 2013 8:18 AM
You are wrong, Mr. Barber. The only issue at hand is whether the individual person being assessed for combat duty can do the job, period. Gender, by itself, is entirely irrelevant. Sure, there are many jobs, such as infantry, for which men in general, because of physical strength, are better suited than women in general. But if physical strength is in the job requirement, then that's how the job should be assigned, not by a person's gender. Are you suggesting that a woman can't drive a tank or fly an attack helicopter? Make the deployment decisions based on all of the relevant characteristics, but gender is not one of them.
Vader!*#% Wrote: Feb 18, 2013 10:10 AM
I wonder if you or Cookie have ever served. I put in 23 years as a tanker, with a year in Nam. Being a tank crewman is a lot more than just sitting the driver's seat. Most maintenance is a lot of knuckle busting. How about the loader? 120mm rounds are somewhat heavy and speed is important. You can't have one position where woman can be and the others not. Messes up career progression. Yes, take a look at Israelis, please. They tried it and stopped. No discussion here about combat effectiveness/readiness, only political correctness. Standards will be lowered to give the illusion of success.
michigander4 Wrote: Feb 18, 2013 8:43 AM
We're not talking about driving tanks and flying helicopters. We're talking about grunt combat. You know, foxholes, blood & guts, defacating, urinating and changing your granny rag two feet away from the boys & girls next to you. Get it?
Gilchrist Wrote: Feb 18, 2013 9:01 AM
Oh, I get it now, YOU would be embarrassed if there was a woman around.
Chris from Kalifornia Wrote: Feb 18, 2013 9:04 AM
And while she is busy doing that, your foxhole is overrun by your enemy and you die then she is raped and dies along with the rest of your platoon.
michigander4 Wrote: Feb 18, 2013 12:19 PM
Gilch,
So you get off defacating in the presence of women? Do you let them tie you up and whip you first?
Beethovens10th Wrote: Feb 18, 2013 8:40 AM
Then why are all qualifying fitness tests dumbed down for women? EVERY.... SINGLE..... ONE.
Cookiepress Wrote: Feb 18, 2013 8:30 AM
I totally agree, look at the Israelis
mistermilo Wrote: Feb 18, 2013 2:11 PM
not a sensible comparison --8 million israelis vs., 81M egypt, 75M iran, 74M Turkey, the remainder, over 120M.

Military mideast enemies over 2.6 million troops --israel 622,000 and that includes the women. Israel would be gone in a short time if they didn't get as many people under arms as possible. You want to stop looking at Israel? Add 100 million people to the country, then they could have a non combat woman's force. Your thinking is dangerous or Islamic or both. I do not think there is a difference anyway.

The term “moronic” is defined as “notably stupid or lacking in good judgment.” It is frequently used as an insult.

The Obama administration is moronic.

This is not an insult.

President Obama’s latest “notably stupid” stoke of America’s calculated slow burn is the decision to lift the ban on women in direct combat. Along with the move a few years back to turn the Officers’ Club into the Blue Oyster Bar, this most recent social experiment with national security represents one small step for the “progressive” agenda and one giant prance toward the pansification of the greatest military...