In response to:

Women in Combat

SdAufKla Wrote: Feb 06, 2013 10:18 AM
Once again the prog-libs try to control the debate by changing the language. The issue is NOT women "in combat." Women have been "in combat" ever since the first cavemen raped and pillaged their neighbors. This is self-evident and an historical circumstance that is being seized upon as a rationalization for change. The issue IS women in military units that are organized, trained and equipped for a doctrinal mission of direct combat - closing with and destroying the enemy's forces by killing or capturing those forces and destroying their means of resistance. The latter is NOT the same as the former. There is a difference between being a truck driver in a convoy that has been attacked and an infantryman closing with the enemy.
Jay Wye Wrote: Feb 06, 2013 2:59 PM
when that truck driver ends up being attacked by the enemy,they ARE in direct combat.
Or when the base comes under attack,like in Afghanistan.
How about guards guarding the flight line and the fighter jets and helos? If they fail,the planes get wiped out,and the battles are lost. Today's complex planes are few in number and hard to replace,unlike WW2 planes.
mshapiro Wrote: Feb 06, 2013 10:34 AM
Spot on. Gold star for you.

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,...