In response to:

Panetta's Cowardly Decision

Rthuba Wrote: Jan 29, 2013 11:05 AM
I was in for 11yrs: IF they qualify, and i don't mean by lowering the standards. Then fine.! Though I don't celebrate the men dying in combat so i sure as heck won't start celebrating women doing the same....
Cappmann Wrote: Jan 29, 2013 11:40 AM
I agree. I'm a 22-year veteran, and have no problem with FULLY QUALIFIED women in such positions. But in far too many instances, "equal" women were only equal based on differing standards. If a woman wants to function in a combat role, fine. She must adhere to the EXACT same standards as the men at who's side she will be fighting. Combat ops number one rule: you must be able to rely on the person next to you, as they must be able to rely on you.
Jay Wye Wrote: Jan 29, 2013 12:45 PM
no matter what standards women pass,they STILL present unnecessary problems in every branch of the military.

Women do NOT belong in the military,it's NOT a social project.

the military has one goal;to WIN in combat,and we pick the best people for that,just as the NFL or NBA does. Neither of them have women playing with the men. Why? because they can't do the job as well as men.
McD2004 Wrote: Jan 29, 2013 4:28 PM
Women DO belong in the military. They perform extremely well in support missions outside of combat. They have proven themselves over time starting the with the WACs, to the nurses on down to whatever non-combat role they perform today. The NFL and NBA have women in supporting roles for the team - just not out on the field/court facing off against the other team. There are some MOSs that women can do as well as or better than men. I agree, that's not combat or anything related to upper-body strength, but the rest of your assertion doesn't hold water with all the female veterans this country has produced.
In a newsworthy act of political cowardice, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta ran through the Pentagon's exit door as he announced he is striking down the 1994 Combat Exclusion Law. His timing means his successor, presumably Chuck Hagel, will inherit the task of defending the order to assign women to front-line military combat.

Of course, Panetta doesn't want to be grilled about his order. It's lacking in common sense and it is toadying to the feminist officers who yearn to be 3- and 4-star generals based on the feminist dogma of gender interchangeability and on their desire to force men...