In response to:

Majority of Voters Favor Full Combat Roles For Women

Uber Dave Wrote: Jan 28, 2013 1:32 PM
So I post this and along comes Will 8080 to prove it: I know that the majority of Americans are clueless about the military, its history and its capabilities... ...So it's no great stretch that they are clueless about women in combat. ...Women have 70% less upper body strength than men, a point made blindingly obvious when it was reported some years ago that only 20% of US Army feamle trainees and 30% of US Marine female trainees could throw a grenade past its bursting radius.
iprazhm Wrote: Jan 28, 2013 1:57 PM
you are exactly right. there is no comparison.
It's why women do not compete against men or along side them in the NFL, NBA, NHL, or many olympic sports.
It's a fact that in most jobs that have been traditionally considered male jobs, woman couldn't meet the physical requirements so the requirements were lowered, making the whole unit less effective than it could and should be.
It's ultimately a mistake and will come back to bite us in the rear, hard. Not to mention it is another reason, once again to make America look inept, week and clueless.
RVN70USMC Wrote: Jan 28, 2013 2:31 PM
...and worst of all, someone other than the woman will end up getting killed because of this idiocy.

Last week as a last hoorah, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta lifted the ban on women serving combat even though women have been serving in combat for quite some time. Now, a new Rasmussen Report shows 59 percent of voters favor women serving in full combat positions.

Most voters think women in the military should be able to fight in combat just like men do. But they still believe overwhelmingly that women need to pass the same physical tests as men if they’re in special forces like the Green Berets and Navy SEALs.