April 01, 2020, 02:30:12 PM

Author Topic: Pentagon to end ban on women in front-line combat  (Read 3278 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21977
    • View Profile
Re: Pentagon to end ban on women in front-line combat
« Reply #30 on: January 27, 2013, 02:24:09 AM »
...and what does he say exactly?

Quote
And as the casualty figures above indicate, the current posture of the U.S. armed forces is not one in which women are leading cloistered, sheltered lives. They are often exposed to great danger. So, what is it then that President Obama and Panetta are doing?

Under the policy, women may end up being placed in infantry and Special Forces battalions and other front line combat units. To doubt the wisdom of this action does not reflect on the courage or abilities of female service members. But the step crosses a line worthy of greater deliberation and public debate.

So they already getting exposed to danger... meaning we done sending them in harms way already, but when it comes to career advancement we just eh giving them the ability to put it on they resume.  Think about it... that make any kinda logical sense??

And then the kicker is that he acknowledging that the policy is discretionary... MAY!  Military commanders will still make the call on who to deploy where... they don't HAVE to send women into the special forces and infantry, but where women are qualified they are already being sent into combat despite the current official policy.  This is what you missing.  Clearly they seeing women performing and succeeding in combat... he himself says it. Instead his objection is predicated not on what IS happening and IS proving to be tenable... but what HE sees i untenable based on stereotyping... same shit you doing, no wonder yuh highlighting it.  Telling ah woman she could go into combat, she just won't get any credit for 'command time' which she will need if she wants to be promoted... is like giving somebody management duty without de pay or title and telling dem tuh humble deyself.  How in de world that seems fair to you is a mystery to me.

...and the funniest thing with all this talk of women having to fight man, talk to any female police officer about having to engage in hand to hand combat.  How come police forces eh fraid they women having to fight man, something for which they are specifically trained... but female soldiers can't?  Not one ah dem??  As I said, I personally know several women who in the least will hold they own in combat with any average soldier, if not beat he ass.  Half the battle is won in the mind, not by arm wrestling and rolling arung on de ground.

Offline Jah Gol

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 8493
  • Ronaldinho is the best player of our era
    • View Profile
    • The Ministry of Noise
Re: Pentagon to end ban on women in front-line combat
« Reply #31 on: January 27, 2013, 06:28:14 AM »
Before you dismiss the article consider a few things Petronio mentions that are empirical. The attrition rates for women are higher than they are for men in training. Petronio herself wasn't just average in training but was actually among the best. However in the field she and the other female in the unit were physically not able to do as much work as their male colleagues and broke down physically much faster.

Regarding your assertion that active servicewomen would not openly advocate for the opening up of these positions you're probably right because that's not the way the military works. However consider that only two women recently volunteered for IOC training and both 'washed out'
« Last Edit: January 27, 2013, 07:48:21 AM by Jah Gol »

Offline asylumseeker

  • Moderator
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 15910
    • View Profile
Re: Pentagon to end ban on women in front-line combat
« Reply #32 on: January 27, 2013, 07:32:58 AM »
The brass made a politically correct decision that does not comport with down range actuality.
"It is not possible to make successful policy in a state of ignorance or indifference to what goes on in the real world." --- Martin Daly.

truetrini

  • Guest
Re: Pentagon to end ban on women in front-line combat
« Reply #33 on: January 27, 2013, 09:34:31 AM »
The brass made a politically correct decision that does not comport with down range actuality.

EXACTLY!


No one is talking about not taking a shit for three days, is taking a shit or a piss in a moving vehicle infront of men...she could do that?  Or maybe we need to stop the mission so she could relieve herself.

Woemn serving in harms way, yes...but they are serving in a support role an as I pointed out most are harmed in Base attacks or in supply routes.

The comparison to women police and soldiers is a nonsense one.   The entire range is different.  a sustained and protratced battle is not the same as making an arrest!

Police women have unique challenges but it is no where close to being in cramped quarters, far from a base...as it is in real combat situations.  I think most people looking at Iraq as the standard for ALL combat missions.

The experiment failed in the Navy.  They put women on ships and a HUGE percentage came back pregnant.

Additionally, is a woman becomes pregnant she has to be withdrawn from combat roles...tell me how de f**k that works when you already have small, tight and cohesive units?

I guess we can alays bring in another woman to replace her???

Besides when you giving them women hazardous duty, plenty ah dem does end up etting excused...dais cause they does be positive on the pregnancy test...go figure.

truetrini

  • Guest
Re: Pentagon to end ban on women in front-line combat
« Reply #34 on: January 27, 2013, 10:59:34 AM »
According to the Associated Press:  about 200,000 women served in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Not one was infantry trained, but they fought when confronted in attacks on bases while working in transport and supply, or in ambushed convoys where some drivers were women. These women fought and they died.

So they finding themselves in combat, but now they want infantry and special forces...well I say they cannot make it, cannot cut the mustard physically and historically.  They fail to finish training, they do not volunteer for the positions and yet a few make noise so they say ok, let them...we will see how well this works out, this is NOT CGI and movie land!

That said,  the fact that women are increasingly in combat due to the evolving battlefield (shit can happen at a moments notice, in urban areas), and the fact that more women are working in support areas in dangerous and hostile situations, let them have their increased, extensive combat training.

 I mean Bakes has a point, that since women already working as foot soldiers, a role handed to them, they should be trained and as well prepared as possible for this new role.

But just like men are subject to the rules, if they fail the training they need to be discharged from the military.

Talk done!



truetrini

  • Guest
Re: Pentagon to end ban on women in front-line combat
« Reply #35 on: January 27, 2013, 11:04:07 AM »
As for all those women who could beat my large pudgy ass...check this:

From the report of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces dated November 15, 1992, it states in part:

The average female Army recruit is 4.8 inches shorter, 31.7 pounds lighter, has 37.4 fewer pounds of muscle, and 5.7 more pounds of fat than the average male recruit. She has only 55 percent of the upper-body strength and 72 percent of the lower-body strength.

An Army study done in 1988 found that women are more than twice as likely to suffer leg injuries and nearly five times as likely to suffer fractures as men.

Further, the Commission heard an abundance of expert testimony including:
- women’s aerobic capacity is significantly lower, meaning they cannot carry as much as far as fast as men, and they are more susceptible to fatigue.
- in terms of physical capability, the upper five percent of women are at the level of the male median. The average 20-to-30 year-old woman has the same aerobic capacity as a 50 year-old man.

After a study was conducted at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, one expert testified that:
- using the standard Army Physical Fitness Test, the upper quintile (top 20%) of women at West point achieved scores on the test equivalent to the bottom quintile (bottom 20%) of men.
- only 21 women out of the initial 623 (3.4%) achieved a score equal to the male mean score of 260.
- on the push-up test, only 7% of women can meet a score of 60, while 78% of men exceed it.
- adopting a male standard of fitness at West Point would mean 70% of the women he studied would be separated as failures at the end of their junior year, only 3% would be eligible for the Recondo badge, and not one would receive the Army Physical Fitness badge.

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21977
    • View Profile
Re: Pentagon to end ban on women in front-line combat
« Reply #36 on: January 27, 2013, 05:05:39 PM »
Before you dismiss the article consider a few things Petronio mentions that are empirical. The attrition rates for women are higher than they are for men in training. Petronio herself wasn't just average in training but was actually among the best. However in the field she and the other female in the unit were physically not able to do as much work as their male colleagues and broke down physically much faster.

Regarding your assertion that active servicewomen would not openly advocate for the opening up of these positions you're probably right because that's not the way the military works. However consider that only two women recently volunteered for IOC training and both 'washed out'

I doh know what so hard to understand about this.  No one is saying that on balance women would perform EQUAL to men... that is every woman would perform equal to every man.  So this attrition rate thing is a red herring.  The average black student scores lower on standardized tests than white students... should black students be denied admission to college because on average they score lower than whites?  Should the ones who score high enough be denied?  The argument makes no sense.  Attrition rate and who wash out don't matter for those who pass muster.  Allyuh keep focusing on women in the collective... as though this is affirmative action that only seeks to put them in jobs based on their gender.  What allyuh fail to realize is that this is about removing barriers for those who have already proved themselves.  I wouldn't even bother raising the very obvious point that beyond anecdotal, this account relates solely to one soldier's perspective from ONE branch of the military... the Marines.

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21977
    • View Profile
Re: Pentagon to end ban on women in front-line combat
« Reply #37 on: January 27, 2013, 05:13:01 PM »
EXACTLY!


No one is talking about not taking a shit for three days, is taking a shit or a piss in a moving vehicle infront of men...she could do that?  Or maybe we need to stop the mission so she could relieve herself.

Woemn serving in harms way, yes...but they are serving in a support role an as I pointed out most are harmed in Base attacks or in supply routes.

The comparison to women police and soldiers is a nonsense one.   The entire range is different.  a sustained and protratced battle is not the same as making an arrest!

Police women have unique challenges but it is no where close to being in cramped quarters, far from a base...as it is in real combat situations.  I think most people looking at Iraq as the standard for ALL combat missions.

You have comprehension problems or what... I made it clear that the comparison to policewomen was limited to the issue of hand-to-hand combat... did you miss that?  Did anybody say anything about 'sustained and protracted battle'... or anything about 'cramped conditions'?

Quote
The experiment failed in the Navy.  They put women on ships and a HUGE percentage came back pregnant.

Additionally, is a woman becomes pregnant she has to be withdrawn from combat roles...tell me how de f**k that works when you already have small, tight and cohesive units?

I guess we can alays bring in another woman to replace her???

Besides when you giving them women hazardous duty, plenty ah dem does end up etting excused...dais cause they does be positive on the pregnancy test...go figure.

You have any sources for all this pregnancy talk?  You seem fixated on what going on between they legs and what coming out they ass rather than whether they capable of performing the tasks.  How they shitting and peeing now... how they avoiding pregnancy over in Iraq and Afghanistan now?  And no, it's not all in support roles.

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21977
    • View Profile
Re: Pentagon to end ban on women in front-line combat
« Reply #38 on: January 27, 2013, 05:30:41 PM »
According to the Associated Press:  about 200,000 women served in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Not one was infantry trained, but they fought when confronted in attacks on bases while working in transport and supply, or in ambushed convoys where some drivers were women. These women fought and they died.

So they finding themselves in combat, but now they want infantry and special forces...well I say they cannot make it, cannot cut the mustard physically and historically.  They fail to finish training, they do not volunteer for the positions and yet a few make noise so they say ok, let them...we will see how well this works out, this is NOT CGI and movie land!

You see that where?  Where anybody call specifically for infantry and special forces jobs?  The fact that many women fail to finish training or don't volunteer is not an excuse to bar positions to ALL... the argument is so asinine that it boggles the mind that supposedly intelligent people continue to raise it.

Quote
That said,  the fact that women are increasingly in combat due to the evolving battlefield (shit can happen at a moments notice, in urban areas), and the fact that more women are working in support areas in dangerous and hostile situations, let them have their increased, extensive combat training.

I mean Bakes has a point, that since women already working as foot soldiers, a role handed to them, they should be trained and as well prepared as possible for this new role.

But just like men are subject to the rules, if they fail the training they need to be discharged from the military.

Talk done!




That isn't even my point... I am talking specifically about women who HAVE been trained already, or who are serving or who have served in these positions, but cannot get recognition for such service... they already proved themselves and have not affected readiness and all the other excuses.

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21977
    • View Profile
Re: Pentagon to end ban on women in front-line combat
« Reply #39 on: January 27, 2013, 06:13:51 PM »
As for all those women who could beat my large pudgy ass...check this:

From the report of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces dated November 15, 1992, it states in part:

The average female Army recruit is 4.8 inches shorter, 31.7 pounds lighter, has 37.4 fewer pounds of muscle, and 5.7 more pounds of fat than the average male recruit. She has only 55 percent of the upper-body strength and 72 percent of the lower-body strength.

An Army study done in 1988 found that women are more than twice as likely to suffer leg injuries and nearly five times as likely to suffer fractures as men.

Further, the Commission heard an abundance of expert testimony including:
- women’s aerobic capacity is significantly lower, meaning they cannot carry as much as far as fast as men, and they are more susceptible to fatigue.
- in terms of physical capability, the upper five percent of women are at the level of the male median. The average 20-to-30 year-old woman has the same aerobic capacity as a 50 year-old man.

After a study was conducted at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, one expert testified that:
- using the standard Army Physical Fitness Test, the upper quintile (top 20%) of women at West point achieved scores on the test equivalent to the bottom quintile (bottom 20%) of men.
- only 21 women out of the initial 623 (3.4%) achieved a score equal to the male mean score of 260.
- on the push-up test, only 7% of women can meet a score of 60, while 78% of men exceed it.
- adopting a male standard of fitness at West Point would mean 70% of the women he studied would be separated as failures at the end of their junior year, only 3% would be eligible for the Recondo badge, and not one would receive the Army Physical Fitness badge.

You have to do better than some outdated 20-year old study fella. Women are already proving themselves... all these statistics are meaningless where it concerns those who have already passed all those fitness and endurance metrics... as I told Jah Gol above.

Further... I just get off the phone a couple hours ago with a pardna of mine (went to school together) who is a field commander in the army.  I was stunned when he said unsolicited "most of the special forces out here average about 5'6- 5'7 and weigh about 150 pounds."  I was kinda tuning him out because I was watching football on the DVR but that make me sit up and take notice, I had to ask him again and he confirm it.  He said most of them is the small, wiry kind and in his mind the reason why they pass Rangers and Delta testing is more down to psychological make-up rather than physical ability. 

Now his opinion is as valuable as the one Jah Gol offered from that chick from de Marines... highly subjective and anecdotal, but it was interesting to hear it still.  He say that in his mind most of them fellas because of they size was used to people doubting them so they became high achievers.  He said, particularly for Rangers, it was more mental endurance (going without food and sleep for days) than physical.  But of course there is a physical component as well.  He said he had women under his most recent command (returned at the start of December from his second tour in Afghanistan) and he had no reservations about assigning them to combat positions.  He did it and he will do it again.  He said the argument against putting them in combat positions is silly because they already serving in this positions, and again... not just as cooks or in logistics or other support roles. 

Consider this, and the fact that the recommendation to integrate came a year ago from the Military Leadership Diversity Commission, and it effectively puts to rest the "comport[ing] with down range actuality" talk.  This decision wasn't made in a vacuum or without consideration of what's already taking place on the ground and it is silly and presumptuous to think otherwise.

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21977
    • View Profile
Re: Pentagon to end ban on women in front-line combat
« Reply #40 on: January 27, 2013, 06:42:20 PM »
Armed Forces in Canada Resolved Issue Long Ago


By IAN AUSTEN

OTTAWA — When Sheila A. Hellstrom first joined the Royal Canadian Air Force in 1954, she was limited to one of three roles: nurse, dietitian or administrator. As the decades passed, she would become the first Canadian woman to reach the rank of general and the Canadian military would integrate women into combat roles.

On Thursday, Brigadier General Hellstrom, who retired a year after a human rights tribunal ordered the full integration of women in the Canadian military in 1989, said that the debate following the Pentagon’s decision to allow women into combat was both familiar and frustrating.

“People are bringing up the issues we had to deal with then,” said General Hellstrom, who is 77. “We have shown here that we can do it.”

Opening the Canadian military to women followed a protracted debate, but the questions over the suitability of women as combat troops have now all but faded from the nation’s collective memory.

“It doesn’t even enter into conversation anymore,” said Capt. Jaime Phillips, a female artillery officer who commanded not only Canadian men but male American and Afghan combat troops in Afghanistan. “It’s just so ingrained in my generation that it seems silly to hear the same old arguments again.”

Those arguments included concerns about battlefield fraternization, worries about the difficulty of providing field accommodations, and fears that male soldiers might feel compelled to protect female soldiers at the expense of military objectives. While Captain Phillips and others inside and outside the Canadian military now view those objections as outdated and disproved, reaching that point was not an easy process.

The move to allow women into combat roles in Canada began with recommendations issued in 1970 by a government commission that conducted a sweeping examination of the place of women in Canada. The military started with a series of trials to see what combat roles were suited for women. Lt. Col. Shirley M. Robinson, a nurse in the Royal Canadian Air Force who was deputy director of women personnel at the time, said the trials were more of a stalling exercise to put off integrating women, a move that the military leadership opposed.

“Those trials should never have happened,” she said. “Women had already been out there in harm’s way.”

As the military delayed, and an internal report recommended allowing combat roles for women only in a relatively small number of helicopter squadrons, four people, three men and one woman, took advantage of Canada’s relatively new Charter of Rights and Freedoms to launch a formal challenge. The tribunal’s 1989 ruling opened all combat roles to women except for those in submarines. That restriction vanished in 2001.

Colonel Robinson, who retired from the military to consult with the tribunal before returning as a civilian consultant, said that the record since then has been largely positive. “We did not lower standards,” she said. “We put appropriate standards on every job in the armed forces. It had nothing to do with gender. A lot of men can’t meet the standards either.”

Women make up about 12 percent of the total military force but Canada’s Department of National Defense did not disclose how many of them are in combat roles. A study presented in late 2011 by Krystel Carrier-Sabourin, a doctoral student at the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ontario, found that 310 women filled combat roles in Afghanistan between 2001 and 2011.

Captain Phillips, who is now an adjutant at an artillery school in New Brunswick, said that she found herself commanding soldiers from both the United States and Afghanistan.

“They were not used to it, that’s for sure,” she said of those troops. “You could tell it was a curiosity for them and they were of the mind of ‘that’s fine for you guys but it’s not our way’.” Nevertheless, Captain Phillips said that her orders were always obeyed and she was never the subject of overt hostility.

Cpl. Katie Hodges, whose time with an infantry unit in Afghanistan was partly documented for the film “Sisters in Arms,” said that it is important to note that combat roles are voluntary for both men and women in the Canadian military.

“I went because I wanted to,” she said. “I wanted to be in the exact opposite of an office job.”

During her training and once she was deployed to Afghanistan, Corporal Hodges shared sleeping accommodations with men, like all women in the infantry. The only time she experienced separate quarters, she said, was when she went down to an American military base for joint training. In the Canadian military, only showers are segregated by gender.

Corporal Hodges, who is now a military photographer stationed at a base northwest of Toronto, is among those surprised that there has been any controversy in the United States about including women in combat roles.

“It’s hard to believe that there is a such a draconian attitude,” she said. “I certainly don’t want to sound offensive but the U.S. is far behind.”

Afghanistan is also notable for another waypoint in the history of women in the Canadian military. On May 17, 2006, Capt. Nichola Goddard, an artillery officer, was in a light armored vehicle when it was hit by two rocket-propelled grenades. She was the first female member of the Canadian military to die in combat.

Her father, Tim Goddard, an educator who lives in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, said that he believes she partly joined the military because a recruiter at her high school only directed his attention to the boys.

Mr. Goddard rejected the argument that women should not be placed in combat roles to shield them from harm.

“I can assure you that a mother misses a son as much as a father grieves for a daughter,” he said. “Grief has no gender.”

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: January 25, 2013

An earlier version of this article misstated Capt. Jaime Phillips’s position at an artillery school in New Brunswick. She is an adjutant, not an adjunct.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/25/world/americas/armed-forces-in-canada-resolved-issue-long-ago.html?src=recg&_r=0

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21977
    • View Profile
Re: Pentagon to end ban on women in front-line combat
« Reply #41 on: January 27, 2013, 06:49:34 PM »
Female Navy SEALs? Special Operations Commander 'Ready to Go Down That Road'


By MARTHA RADDATZ (@martharaddatz) and RYM MOMTAZ (@RymMomtaz)
July 28, 2011

The top commander of U.S. special operations says he thinks it's time for women to go into combat as Navy SEALS.

A Navy SEAL himself, Admiral Eric T. Olson said at the opening session of the 2011 Aspen Security Forum that he would like to see female SEALs in combat roles.

"As soon as policy permits it, we'll be ready to go down that road," said Olson.

He added that being a SEAL is not just about physical strength. "I don't think the idea is to select G.I. Jane and put her through SEAL training, but there are a number of things that a man and a woman can do together that two guys can't," said Olson. "I don't think it's as important that they can do a lot of push-ups. I think it's much more important what they're made of and whether or not they have the courage and the intellectual agility to do that."

While women serve in the U.S. special forces community as information specialists and civil affairs specialists, there are currently no female SEALs, Green Berets, Rangers or Marine special operators as a result of the 1994 combat exclusion policy that precludes women from being assigned to ground combat units.

But given the unique access females can secure with local women in conservative societies where the U.S. military is operating, said Admiral Olson, "Cultural Support Teams" made up of two to four women were created last year to be attached to SEAL teams and Green Beret units and are already at work. Olson said that 56 more women graduated last week, "all of whom will be in Afghanistan by the end of August."

"We don't have nearly enough," said Olson, "and we're too late bringing them into what it is we have them doing."

Last March, the Military Leadership Diversity Commission recommended that the Department of Defense and the services eliminate combat exclusion policies for women. Though women have for years served in ground combat they have done so by serving in units deemed attached to ground units, which keeps them from being recognized for their combat experience and curtails their chances of being promoted.

While he would not comment on the May 2nd raid in that killed Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan, Admiral Olson said that "there were somewhere between 3,000 to 4000, depending on how you count them, operations of this nature conducted in 2010 alone." Calling the operations "routine," the admiral said they range from knocking on a door to more "kinetic" action.

Admiral Olson, who is in charge of managing and coordinating the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps special forces, jokingly likened his job to that of Afghan president Hamid Karzai, saying, "There's a lot of warlord management," drawing laughter from the audience. "It's a paella and at the end of the day it tastes good, but it's tough to put together sometimes."

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/female-navy-seals-special-forces-chief-ready-road/story?id=14180174

Offline congo

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 963
    • View Profile
Re: Pentagon to end ban on women in front-line combat
« Reply #42 on: January 27, 2013, 07:48:49 PM »
I'm not too informed on this issue but read this and thought that I would share.

Army reveals secret elite unit that puts women on front line

By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent12:01AM BST 04 Sep 2005

The existence of the increasing role being played by women in Britain's special forces has been publicly revealed for the first time.

The women, whose identities like all members of the special forces have to remain secret, were photographed participating in the inaugural parade of the newly formed Special Reconnaissance Regiment.

Although women have served in parts of Britain's special forces for the past 20 years, this is the first time that their role has been publicly acknowledged.

The new unit, which has its headquarters in south Wales, has already been deployed in operations in Britain following the suicide bomb attacks in London in July.

Men and women from the SRR are understood to have taken part in the surveillance operations that led to the capture of the four men allegedly responsible for the failed attempts to bomb the London Tube network on July 21.

Service women of all ranks, and from all three of the Armed Forces, up to the age of 32 are allowed to apply to join the regiment. To be accepted they must complete a gruelling six-month selection course and undertake exactly the same physical and mental tests as their male counterparts.

Operatives, as they are known, are trained in covert surveillance, close-quarter battle skills, self-defence and driving skills. They are also taught how to plant bugging devices, hidden cameras and covert methods of entry into buildings and cars.

The unit, formed in April last year, has existed in a different guise for more than 20 years, under the cover name of 14 Intelligence Company, a highly secret organisation that conducted undercover operations in Northern Ireland alongside the SAS and MI5.

Such was the secrecy surrounding the unit that few of its operations were made public. Members of the unit are, however, some of the most highly decorated men and women in the Services. One of its successes was providing the information for the SAS operation in 1988 which led to the shooting dead of three IRA terrorists who were planning to attack British forces in Gibraltar.

The unit also took part in an operation that thwarted an IRA plot to attack a police station at Loughgall, Co Tyrone, in 1987. Eight IRA members were killed by the SAS in a carefully planned ambush.

Plans for the creation of a new special forces regiment were revealed by The Sunday Telegraph in July last year. The unit will conduct anti-terror operations in Britain and around the world working closely with MI5 and MI6 and foreign intelligence organisations.

The unit usually conducts its operations in plain clothes and wears uniform only in barracks or for formal parades.

John Reid, the Defence Secretary, who watched the parade accompanied by Gen Sir Mike Jackson, the chief of the General Staff, said: "The Special Reconnaissance Regiment is one of the new capabilities generated as part of the reshaping of our Armed Forces. They have greatly improved support to worldwide operations at a time when they are needed most in the ongoing fight against international terrorism."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1497590/Army-reveals-secret-elite-unit-that-puts-women-on-front-line.html
« Last Edit: January 27, 2013, 07:51:36 PM by congo »

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21977
    • View Profile
Re: Pentagon to end ban on women in front-line combat
« Reply #43 on: January 27, 2013, 10:17:28 PM »
Good find Congo... makes me wonder if there is some unstated policy about not advertising the role of women in combat these past several years.  But as this now demonstrates, the US clearly has been lagging behind the other western military powers.  Say what you want about the capacity to wage war by Israel, Canada and now the UK... but at least they figure out a way to do de impossible ( ::) ) put women into combat alongside men.  Cue de 'period', pregnancy and potty stories.

Offline congo

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 963
    • View Profile
Re: Pentagon to end ban on women in front-line combat
« Reply #44 on: January 27, 2013, 11:54:41 PM »
Now remember this unit is tasked with reconnaissance. This is not the SAS or SBS where they would engage in open combat with the enemy. The SRR is tasked strictly with the planting of bugs and surveillance so women would be useful in certain situations when they need to get closer to a target without raising suspicion.

Also keep in mind that women have been used as "spies' for decades now and these highly trained intelligence officers/agents have been expected to carry out the same work and employ the same skills as their male counterparts. Skills that put them on par with and even superior to soldiers at the special forces level.

I think the whole issue of keeping it "secret" is to allow for the enemy to be fooled and not to expect a woman coming to do the dirty work. If you don't know that it exists then you can't see it coming.

 You know the right female operative could use some tricks to get close to any man or target. The same can't be said for a man though.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2013, 12:11:28 AM by congo »

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21977
    • View Profile
Re: Pentagon to end ban on women in front-line combat
« Reply #45 on: January 28, 2013, 12:50:07 AM »
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/04/30/us/36-women-pregnant-aboard-a-navy-ship-that-served-in-gulf.html

Yeah and there are more.  we used to refer to some as the USS lOve boat etc.

anyway your fren must be talking about the Special forces in the Salvation Army when he said that the average height is 5.6-5.7 and 150 pounds.  Seriously!



Yeah well seeing that he is an active military officer and you posting articles from when Jesus was in pajamas... I'll take he word over yours  ;D

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21977
    • View Profile
Re: Pentagon to end ban on women in front-line combat
« Reply #46 on: January 28, 2013, 01:01:34 AM »
Here's yet another perspective posted in our FB alumni group (this one a little older than me so I don't know him).  Looks long, but it's a quick read:

Quote
My personal opinion on Women in Combat.
 
As a former Marine Infantry Company Commander, who was nearly relieved of my command for (among other things) tasking a USMC "Lioness" Team to stay overnight "outside the wire" at one of my combat outposts as they took part in combat patrols outside of Fallujah, I can tell you unequivocally that there have been and will be women in combat forever.
 
 
Speaking from my personal experience in Iraq in 2008, my take on the matter reversed after a tense discussion with one of the four sheiks that led tribes in my area of operations. We were in the middle of intense negotiations over money for a contract (money I was going to give him but his pride required that he show he was in charge) when all of a sudden fell silent. We didn't speak for 10 minutes until I asked, through my interpreter, "What's going on?" The sheik started screaming at me in Arabic. This was his thing...yell at me for something out of my control (Why is the sky blue?) and then we would go eat and hangout like nothing had happened. Still, something told me that something else was wrong so I straight up asked him: "What is really wrong?" After an exchange between him and my interpreter the sheik started speaking in English. He said: "You people are missing half the conversation."
 
 
At that moment, I had two thoughts: "Whatchu mean 'YOU people?'" and "This guy can speak English?" After the initial shock, I asked him to explain. For clarity he reverted to Arabic and the interpreter. He began to point to the back of the house, one of the nicest in all of my area of operations, to where I knew the kitchen was and where the women were kept when I and my Marines visited. For the sheik, my unit's presence in the area was causing him one big problem: His family was mad at him. In this part of Iraq, "Family" was a codeword for "My Wife."
 
 
He explained that after nearly five years, since the 2003 invasion, many Iraqis were beginning to see some of the benefits of what US Forces had brought to the country after the fall of Saddam but in our small area and after many units had rotated through, the women had grown upset...because no one was talking to them.
 
 
He asked, "Why don't you people bring any women when you come visit?" "My wives know you have women in the Marine Corps but you don't let them come talk to our families." 
 
 
After a bit more about how he wished his wives would get off his case he calmed down and told me that I would probably get a better sense of what was going on in my area if I brought some female Marines with me.--In my mind I thought I had used Lioness Teams for months but quickly remembered that these teams were specifically to be used for searching women at checkpoints and in some cases for providing medical care.
 
 
After a long conversation, I returned to base and came back the next day with a couple of Lioness Team Members. As we entered the home, we dropped our gear left it under guard and entered the main salon of the sheik's house. Before we could sit, the door to the kitchen opened and a women who I had never seen before appeared, grabbed the two female Marines and went back inside. I sent the interpreter with them and he was subsequently sent back and it was just me, the sheik and my interpreter sitting in silence like some schoolchildren waiting outside the principal's office after a fight. After emplacing a vehicle and other Marines in overwatch over the kitchen part of the house, I returned to sign some papers for a fish hatchery contract, made small-talk with the sheik and after a while we ate a big dinner. When it was time to go, I collected all of my Marines, we put our gear on and headed out to our vehicles.
 
 
Outside, I asked one of the Lionesses, "What did you guys do back there for three hours without an interpreter?" to which she responded, "The women showed us how to cook dinner." Okay... Not being one to toot my own horn, I thought, up until that point in the deployment, that I had it all figured out. Give the sheiks a choice between "dollars" or "bullets" and my unit would be successful and return to Hawaii safely. But, in that very moment as the Marine returned to her vehicle and I climbed into mine I realized the sheik was right.
 
 
What the Marines discovered in the kitchen was that years of US-sourced relief materials had affected the way Iraqis were preparing their own meals. Differences in USAID flour and grains and the extensive long-term use of bottled water had changed their eating habits. Kind of like when we go places we don’t drink the water because it will give us diarrhea, in this part of town, the lack of a water purification plant had made the Iraqis dependent on our water and thus changed the way their stomachs reacted to Iraqi water. I had never thought of this before and began to wonder what else I did not know.
 
 
For the minor success that this was, my Executive Officer, a Naval Academy Grad with whom I had had many an "intense conversation", made more requests for Lioness Teams to be deployed within our area of operations. The understanding from higher was that they were being used for the purpose of providing medical assistance to or conducting security searches on women. In reality, I gave no explicit orders or tasks other than "being present" and interacting with the women and children of my small part of Iraq. After a few disagreements with multiple commands on what the Lioness Teams were doing in my area, it became clear to all of us that we had indeed been missing out by not connecting with the "whole" Iraqi population and that a different role for female Marines in Iraq in 2008 and beyond might be needed.

Why should we worry? After all, Marines, both men and women, receive the exact same training upon their initial entry into the Marine Corps. Same physical challenges, same marksmanship and martial arts training. They receive the same gear. They are given the same cultural training. Why should we worry about the safety of the women in combat more than we worry about the safety of men in combat?
 
 
The handful of women with whom I served at that point in history made more of a difference in a few days than my whole company of 300 Marines could have ever made throughout the length of our seven-month deployment.
 
 
So...What is my take on Women in Combat? (Keep in mind, I am not a genius.)
 
1. This is nothing new...There have been women in combat since a human first picked up a rock to kill another human. Today, all American Men and Women are in a Combat Zone as soon as they step off the plane.
 
2. Why wouldn't we want women in combat? Americans can't represent all of America's Values if they don't all show up at the "Tip of the Spear". How can we fight for the equal rights of women in Afghanistan if won't let a woman hold the very rifle that gaining such equality may require?
3. Would I want my daughters to go into combat? HELL NO. But, if that is what they want to do I will support them and would hope that they could serve in an environment where they were not limited by anything else other than their own abilities.

4. In some circles, the real question is: "How will America, react when we send women to start killing people?" Combat service support (fixing things, fueling vehicles, transporting materials) is one thing but what if the Navy SEAL that killed Osama Bin Laden had been a woman? Would we really care? I can tell you terrorist don’t care whether they hurt men or women. Why should we care if a Man or Woman protects us from terrorists?
 
Just Sayin',
Bill [name deleted]

Not that it matters... but both fellas whose perspectives I'm sharing are black.  I sure the white boys might have a different take.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2013, 01:03:18 AM by Bakes »

truetrini

  • Guest
Re: Pentagon to end ban on women in front-line combat
« Reply #47 on: January 28, 2013, 02:09:34 AM »
Let them fight...send them into battle, I can assure you it will be a VERY small percentage of the already small percentage of women in the military.

They not going to be volunteering in droves that is for sure.

Frontlines are blurring anyway..so even those who not in infantry and special forces will be exposed.

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21977
    • View Profile
Re: Pentagon to end ban on women in front-line combat
« Reply #48 on: January 28, 2013, 02:39:35 AM »
Let them fight...send them into battle, I can assure you it will be a VERY small percentage of the already small percentage of women in the military.

They not going to be volunteering in droves that is for sure.

Frontlines are blurring anyway..so even those who not in infantry and special forces will be exposed.

That is the whole point... the fella I talk to today said just that, there is no traditional frontlines anymore.  You say special forces will be exposed, it wouldn't be anymore exposed than it already is because it will be getting qualified soldiers who meet the rigorous standards already in place.

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21977
    • View Profile
Re: Pentagon to end ban on women in front-line combat
« Reply #49 on: February 02, 2013, 11:00:49 AM »
First Pull-Ups, Then Combat, Marines Say


By ELISABETH BUMILLER

WASHINGTON — How many pull-ups does it take to make a female Marine?

The answer, starting next January: a minimum of three, the same number required of male Marines.

If anyone thought the military’s decision to allow women into combat units would lead to exceptions for women when it came to fitness and physical strength, this is one service’s “gender neutral” answer — or at least part of the answer.

Like the men, women will have to perform the exercises on the Marine Corps’s annual physical fitness test as “dead hang” pull-ups, without the benefit of the momentum from a lower-body swing. Like the men, women can do the pull-ups underhanded or overhanded, as long as their chins break the plane of the bar.

The new requirement replaces the old “flexed arm hang” for women, in place since 1975, which had to be held for a minimum of 15 seconds.

“The physical requirements of female Marines, commensurate with their roles, have increased greatly since 1975,” said Col. Sean D. Gibson, a spokesman for the Marine Corps Combat Development Command in Quantico, Va. “The pull-up is a better test of muscular strength.”

But the new Marine Corps regulations are just part of a sweeping re-examination of fitness standards in the military that Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta’s announcement last week ending the ban on women in combat only accelerated.

As it stands now, service members face a gantlet of overlapping fitness tests throughout the vast sprawl of the American military, from initial ones that recruits have to pass to annual fitness (and weight) tests to specific physical requirements that must be met for combat jobs.

The Pentagon says it will not lower standards for women, but is nonetheless reviewing the requirements for hundreds of what are called military occupational specialties to see if they actually match up with the demands of each job.

Some combat jobs that might open to women may require them to meet only specific requirements rather than a wide range of fitness standards.

“We’re going to ensure that our tank crewmen are fully capable of removing 50-pound projectiles from the ammunition rack and loading them into the main gun in a sustained manner in a combat situation,” said George Wright, an Army spokesman.

But for now, the Army has no immediate plans to change its sex-adjusted recruitment and annual fitness tests, even though the Marine Corps, which tenaciously promotes itself as the most hard-bodied service, has started to toughen up its standards for women.

But even for the pull-ups, the Marines are still making some exceptions. To get a perfect grade, women will have to do only 8, compared with the 20 required for men.

“I don’t think it’s a very high bar,” said Capt. Ann G. Fox, a Marine Reserve officer who during her first deployment in 2004 worked with the Iraqi Army and who thinks women could do better if it was required of them. “I think the test should be the same as the men 20 pull-ups. People train to what they’re tested on.”

That was the experience of Greg Jacob, who was a commander at the combat training school for enlisted Marines at Camp Geiger, N.C., and said that he asked his female trainers to do the same number of pull-ups as their male students, even though women were not required at the time to do pull-ups at all.

“I saw women who could only do one or two pull-ups be able to bust out, over the course of four or five months, eight pull-ups,” he said. “And that was because they were training to that standard.”

Mr. Jacob, now the policy director for the Service Women’s Action Network, an advocacy group that worked to end the female combat ban, acknowledged the physiological differences between men and women, but said they were overstated. “There are lots of men who don’t have the same muscle mass as other men,” he said. “There is physical diversity regardless of gender.”

Many jobs in the military, he said, have nonnegotiable physical demands. “Whether you were a man or a woman, you had to throw a live grenade 15 meters,” he said. “If a woman throws the hand grenade 10 meters, it’s going to blow up in her face and kill her.”

In the Army, no pull-ups are required of either men or women on the annual fitness test, but like the Marines, there are different standards for each sex. A 17- to 26-year-old man in the Army has to run two miles in 15 minutes, 54 seconds or less and do at least 42 push-ups; a woman in the same age group has to run two miles in 18 minutes, 54 seconds or less and do at least 19 push-ups.

The requirements decrease as service members age, although a woman who is 62 or older in the Army still has to run two miles in 25 minutes or less.

Marines, typically, raise the bar. A 17- to 26-year-old male Marine has to run three miles in 28 minutes or less on his annual fitness test; compared with 31 minutes or less for a female Marine of the same age.

The Marines also require all men and women to pass an annual combat fitness test, even though until now women were not officially permitted in combat. The sex-adjusted test drills Marines in how to respond under fire.

All of the tests pale in comparison with one of the most brutal male preserves in the military, the Marines’ 86-day Infantry Officer Course at Quantico, Va., which is intended to screen and train potential infantry officers. The test makes extraordinary physical and mental demands on its participants.

Last fall, two female officers went through the course as an experiment and failed, inviting questions — even though large numbers of men fail — of whether women were up to it.

Gen. James F. Amos, the commandant of the Marine Corps, held out the possibility that they are. In comments to reporters in San Diego on Thursday, he said he had met with two more female officers who had signed up for the next Infantry Officer Course, starting in March. “It looks like they’re in great shape and they’re excited about it,” he said.

Offline Mango Chow!

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 5720
    • View Profile
Re: Pentagon to end ban on women in front-line combat
« Reply #50 on: February 03, 2013, 07:47:14 AM »
First Pull-Ups, Then Combat, Marines Say


By ELISABETH BUMILLER

WASHINGTON — How many pull-ups does it take to make a female Marine?

The answer, starting next January: a minimum of three, the same number required of male Marines.

If anyone thought the military’s decision to allow women into combat units would lead to exceptions for women when it came to fitness and physical strength, this is one service’s “gender neutral” answer — or at least part of the answer.

Like the men, women will have to perform the exercises on the Marine Corps’s annual physical fitness test as “dead hang” pull-ups, without the benefit of the momentum from a lower-body swing. Like the men, women can do the pull-ups underhanded or overhanded, as long as their chins break the plane of the bar.

The new requirement replaces the old “flexed arm hang” for women, in place since 1975, which had to be held for a minimum of 15 seconds.

“The physical requirements of female Marines, commensurate with their roles, have increased greatly since 1975,” said Col. Sean D. Gibson, a spokesman for the Marine Corps Combat Development Command in Quantico, Va. “The pull-up is a better test of muscular strength.”

But the new Marine Corps regulations are just part of a sweeping re-examination of fitness standards in the military that Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta’s announcement last week ending the ban on women in combat only accelerated.

As it stands now, service members face a gantlet of overlapping fitness tests throughout the vast sprawl of the American military, from initial ones that recruits have to pass to annual fitness (and weight) tests to specific physical requirements that must be met for combat jobs.

The Pentagon says it will not lower standards for women, but is nonetheless reviewing the requirements for hundreds of what are called military occupational specialties to see if they actually match up with the demands of each job.

Some combat jobs that might open to women may require them to meet only specific requirements rather than a wide range of fitness standards.

“We’re going to ensure that our tank crewmen are fully capable of removing 50-pound projectiles from the ammunition rack and loading them into the main gun in a sustained manner in a combat situation,” said George Wright, an Army spokesman.

But for now, the Army has no immediate plans to change its sex-adjusted recruitment and annual fitness tests, even though the Marine Corps, which tenaciously promotes itself as the most hard-bodied service, has started to toughen up its standards for women.

But even for the pull-ups, the Marines are still making some exceptions. To get a perfect grade, women will have to do only 8, compared with the 20 required for men.

“I don’t think it’s a very high bar,” said Capt. Ann G. Fox, a Marine Reserve officer who during her first deployment in 2004 worked with the Iraqi Army and who thinks women could do better if it was required of them. “I think the test should be the same as the men 20 pull-ups. People train to what they’re tested on.”

That was the experience of Greg Jacob, who was a commander at the combat training school for enlisted Marines at Camp Geiger, N.C., and said that he asked his female trainers to do the same number of pull-ups as their male students, even though women were not required at the time to do pull-ups at all.

“I saw women who could only do one or two pull-ups be able to bust out, over the course of four or five months, eight pull-ups,” he said. “And that was because they were training to that standard.”

Mr. Jacob, now the policy director for the Service Women’s Action Network, an advocacy group that worked to end the female combat ban, acknowledged the physiological differences between men and women, but said they were overstated. “There are lots of men who don’t have the same muscle mass as other men,” he said. “There is physical diversity regardless of gender.”

Many jobs in the military, he said, have nonnegotiable physical demands. “Whether you were a man or a woman, you had to throw a live grenade 15 meters,” he said. “If a woman throws the hand grenade 10 meters, it’s going to blow up in her face and kill her.”

In the Army, no pull-ups are required of either men or women on the annual fitness test, but like the Marines, there are different standards for each sex. A 17- to 26-year-old man in the Army has to run two miles in 15 minutes, 54 seconds or less and do at least 42 push-ups; a woman in the same age group has to run two miles in 18 minutes, 54 seconds or less and do at least 19 push-ups.

The requirements decrease as service members age, although a woman who is 62 or older in the Army still has to run two miles in 25 minutes or less.

Marines, typically, raise the bar. A 17- to 26-year-old male Marine has to run three miles in 28 minutes or less on his annual fitness test; compared with 31 minutes or less for a female Marine of the same age.

The Marines also require all men and women to pass an annual combat fitness test, even though until now women were not officially permitted in combat. The sex-adjusted test drills Marines in how to respond under fire.

All of the tests pale in comparison with one of the most brutal male preserves in the military, the Marines’ 86-day Infantry Officer Course at Quantico, Va., which is intended to screen and train potential infantry officers. The test makes extraordinary physical and mental demands on its participants.

Last fall, two female officers went through the course as an experiment and failed, inviting questions — even though large numbers of men fail — of whether women were up to it.

Gen. James F. Amos, the commandant of the Marine Corps, held out the possibility that they are. In comments to reporters in San Diego on Thursday, he said he had met with two more female officers who had signed up for the next Infantry Officer Course, starting in March. “It looks like they’re in great shape and they’re excited about it,” he said.


I see you INSIST on beating this issue to death on the lone reference point you could try to opine on just for the sake of trying to force yourself to be right, but I will repeat:
     
   "if you would have had the good fortune to have spent some time in the military, you would be singing a different tune.....but then again, maybe not....but that is a whole separate issue..... However, it is clear that you haven't so you cannot appreciate yourself how clueless you really are with your assessment.  But just so you know, "women in combat" is a much deeper issue and carries with it, a whole different set of complications than just "physical standards"....but I know it would be a waste of time to get a fool like you to appreciate  and understand that."


Not because a man ears long and he teet' long dat it make him a Jackass!

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21977
    • View Profile
Re: Pentagon to end ban on women in front-line combat
« Reply #51 on: February 03, 2013, 09:46:46 AM »
I see you INSIST on beating this issue to death on the lone reference point you could try to opine on just for the sake of trying to force yourself to be right, but I will repeat:
     
I have no idea what you going on about with that "lone reference point" or me "trying to force [myself] to be right" talk... but you have to be a special breed of dotish (which wouldn't surprise me) to disregard the growing consensus against the discredited position you so tenuously hold on to.

Quote
"if you would have had the good fortune to have spent some time in the military, you would be singing a different tune.....but then again, maybe not....but that is a whole separate issue..... However, it is clear that you haven't so you cannot appreciate yourself how clueless you really are with your assessment.  But just so you know, "women in combat" is a much deeper issue and carries with it, a whole different set of complications than just "physical standards"....but I know it would be a waste of time to get a fool like you to appreciate  and understand that."

I don't have to have served in order to have an opinion on whether women deserve a chance to prove themselves, especially when it is your jackass opinion that they don't even deserve such a chance.  Your harping on the fact that I didn't serve in the military is made even further ridiculous by the fact that you ignore the voices of those who are serving and who have served, whose opinions I offer in addition to my own.  But I won't waste any time going back and forth with you on this, we already know you talking ah pack ah shit.

Offline Mango Chow!

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 5720
    • View Profile
Re: Pentagon to end ban on women in front-line combat
« Reply #52 on: February 03, 2013, 11:49:19 AM »
I see you INSIST on beating this issue to death on the lone reference point you could try to opine on just for the sake of trying to force yourself to be right, but I will repeat:
     
I have no idea what you going on about with that "lone reference point" or me "trying to force [myself] to be right" talk... but you have to be a special breed of dotish (which wouldn't surprise me) to disregard the growing consensus against the discredited position you so tenuously hold on to.

Quote
"if you would have had the good fortune to have spent some time in the military, you would be singing a different tune.....but then again, maybe not....but that is a whole separate issue..... However, it is clear that you haven't so you cannot appreciate yourself how clueless you really are with your assessment.  But just so you know, "women in combat" is a much deeper issue and carries with it, a whole different set of complications than just "physical standards"....but I know it would be a waste of time to get a fool like you to appreciate  and understand that."

I don't have to have served in order to have an opinion on whether women deserve a chance to prove themselves, especially when it is your jackass opinion that they don't even deserve such a chance.  Your harping on the fact that I didn't serve in the military is made even further ridiculous by the fact that you ignore the voices of those who are serving and who have served, whose opinions I offer in addition to my own.  But I won't waste any time going back and forth with you on this, we already know you talking ah pack ah shit.


  That so-called "consensus" you talk about only seems to "grow" because the Pentagon has issued its mandate, one probably pushed more by the Commander-in-Chief than anything, and the voices of dissent have to quiet themselves and get with the program combined, no doubt, with those proponents speaking that much louder, being more victorious with this new rule.  Same thing when the ban on gays was lifted, you heard less and less of the voices of dissent and more and more of the gay advocates welcoming the new change. Just because you are using examples of people that are and have been in the military, doesn't mean that there are those that are or have been in the military that still disaprove....in large(r) numbers.  I'm sure anybody can sweep the internet and still find military personnel past and present, that think i its a bad idea, except that, the ones with their careers to think about, now have to keep it shut and move along.  You keep harping on the "physical standards" more than anything else as if that's the end-all and be-all to life in the military and life in the military in combat environments.  Whether it be in peace time or in war time, in training or in the flesh of actual war, the presence of women becomes an all around distraction and, like I said before, it's mostly the men that have been in the military, been in the environments and conditions that it takes you in to appreciate that.  For every example you have swept the internet to copy and paste on here, I have spoken personally with twice as many servicemen and some servicewomen, both enlisted AND commissioned officer that feel the opposite. But with President Obama having championed the causes of Gays in the military and "equal pay for equal work" for women, it would only follow that "women in combat" would be an agenda to come to the forefront, and it wasn't a fight he was going to lose.....it doesn't mean that it's a good thing. This is not just about the "women" and their "chance" to prove anything.  Like other "Military" personnel have said in examples given by other posters,  you have to see how the troops in the field feel about it and I guarantee you, the majority of them think it's a joke....but keep poring over yuh keyboard.  Yuh say "we" as if you come in parts...but then again, considering that the words "jackass", "c**thole" and "dickhead" are all compound words and, ironically, apply to you, I guess I can see where you would fantasize your opinion to be being more than singular.  Just because everybody has an asshole, doesn't mean than an asshole can speak for everybody. 


Not because a man ears long and he teet' long dat it make him a Jackass!

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21977
    • View Profile
Re: Pentagon to end ban on women in front-line combat
« Reply #53 on: February 03, 2013, 12:19:27 PM »
  That so-called "consensus" you talk about only seems to "grow" because the Pentagon has issued its mandate, one probably pushed more by the Commander-in-Chief than anything, and the voices of dissent have to quiet themselves and get with the program combined, no doubt, with those proponents speaking that much louder, being more victorious with this new rule.    Same thing when the ban on gays was lifted, you heard less and less of the voices of dissent and more and more of the gay advocates welcoming the new change.

Obama couldn't "push" his military policy on the military without significant push back from men like McChrystal... but he could just issue de word, like Jesus I suppose, and have them accept equality for gays and for women?  Yuh eh see you's ah real tun tun.  I suppose he was also responsible for the last push for women in combat 18 years ago as well, dunce.  The fact is that the Military Leadership Diversity Commission recommended this years ago, this is nothing new or recent.  It get the endorsement of Obama for two reasons that your simple ass having a hard time understanding: a) We winding down war, so is nothing that will have to see the light of day any time soon; b) Obama can afford to give it backing now because he has nothing to lose, his second term done secure.

Quote
Just because you are using examples of people that are and have been in the military, doesn't mean that there are those that are or have been in the military that still disaprove....in large(r) numbers.  I'm sure anybody can sweep the internet and still find military personnel past and present, that think i its a bad idea, except that, the ones with their careers to think about, now have to keep it shut and move along.

Schupidee... "just because" there is strong support by those who have and are serving... it means that your continued harping on the fact that I never served in the military is meaningless.  Service in the military is not a prerequisite for supporting the right of women in combat roles, since there are many both within and outside who support and understand the issues.  That there is dissenting voices within the military is a point of significance to no one but your idiot self.

Quote
You keep harping on the "physical standards" more than anything else as if that's the end-all and be-all to life in the military and life in the military in combat environments.  Whether it be in peace time or in war time, in training or in the flesh of actual war, the presence of women becomes an all around distraction and, like I said before, it's mostly the men that have been in the military, been in the environments and conditions that it takes you in to appreciate that.
 

You have to be an even bigger nanny that I thought yes fella.  You realize that the biggest grumble about women in combat is the 'physical standards" argument, right?  Therefore it stands to reason that many voices are being raised saying it's a non-issue.  I have already added enough evidence, by way of statements of current and past servicemembers who say that physical standards aside, the presence of women on the battlefield will not prove a logistic or tactical issue, nor will morale be affected.  Canada, the UK, Israel among others have somehow figured out how to make it work... but the so-called 'greatest country on Earth' can't?  GTFOH.

Quote
For every example you have swept the internet to copy and paste on here, I have spoken personally with twice as many servicemen and some servicewomen, both enlisted AND commissioned officer that feel the opposite. But with President Obama having championed the causes of Gays in the military and "equal pay for equal work" for women, it would only follow that "women in combat" would be an agenda to come to the forefront, and it wasn't a fight he was going to lose.....it doesn't mean that it's a good thing. This is not just about the "women" and their "chance" to prove anything.  Like other "Military" personnel have said in examples given by other posters,  you have to see how the troops in the field feel about it and I guarantee you, the majority of them think it's a joke....but keep poring over yuh keyboard.  Yuh say "we" as if you come in parts...but then again, considering that the words "jackass", "c**thole" and "dickhead" are all compound words and, ironically, apply to you, I guess I can see where you would fantasize your opinion to be being more than singular.  Just because everybody has an asshole, doesn't mean than an asshole can speak for everybody. 

I doh have to sweep the internet to find articles on an issue that is currently in the news... but not surprisingly, since you lack any intellectual response to the points presented via the testimony from others, you instead choose to try and discredit what is offered as 'cut and paste', and resorting to meaningless primary school pejoratives about "jackass" and "c**thole" and "dickhead".  If you feel any of that affecting me yuh free to continue fooling yuhself and making yuhself look like ah even bigger ass in de process.

Offline Mango Chow!

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 5720
    • View Profile
Re: Pentagon to end ban on women in front-line combat
« Reply #54 on: February 03, 2013, 01:13:05 PM »
  That so-called "consensus" you talk about only seems to "grow" because the Pentagon has issued its mandate, one probably pushed more by the Commander-in-Chief than anything, and the voices of dissent have to quiet themselves and get with the program combined, no doubt, with those proponents speaking that much louder, being more victorious with this new rule.    Same thing when the ban on gays was lifted, you heard less and less of the voices of dissent and more and more of the gay advocates welcoming the new change.

Obama couldn't "push" his military policy on the military without significant push back from men like McChrystal... but he could just issue de word, like Jesus I suppose, and have them accept equality for gays and for women?  Yuh eh see you's ah real tun tun.  I suppose he was also responsible for the last push for women in combat 18 years ago as well, dunce.  The fact is that the Military Leadership Diversity Commission recommended this years ago, this is nothing new or recent.  It get the endorsement of Obama for two reasons that your simple ass having a hard time understanding: a) We winding down war, so is nothing that will have to see the light of day any time soon; b) Obama can afford to give it backing now because he has nothing to lose, his second term done secure.

Quote
Just because you are using examples of people that are and have been in the military, doesn't mean that there are those that are or have been in the military that still disaprove....in large(r) numbers.  I'm sure anybody can sweep the internet and still find military personnel past and present, that think i its a bad idea, except that, the ones with their careers to think about, now have to keep it shut and move along.

Schupidee... "just because" there is strong support by those who have and are serving... it means that your continued harping on the fact that I never served in the military is meaningless.  Service in the military is not a prerequisite for supporting the right of women in combat roles, since there are many both within and outside who support and understand the issues.  That there is dissenting voices within the military is a point of significance to no one but your idiot self.

Quote
You keep harping on the "physical standards" more than anything else as if that's the end-all and be-all to life in the military and life in the military in combat environments.  Whether it be in peace time or in war time, in training or in the flesh of actual war, the presence of women becomes an all around distraction and, like I said before, it's mostly the men that have been in the military, been in the environments and conditions that it takes you in to appreciate that.
 

You have to be an even bigger nanny that I thought yes fella.  You realize that the biggest grumble about women in combat is the 'physical standards" argument, right?  Therefore it stands to reason that many voices are being raised saying it's a non-issue.  I have already added enough evidence, by way of statements of current and past servicemembers who say that physical standards aside, the presence of women on the battlefield will not prove a logistic or tactical issue, nor will morale be affected.  Canada, the UK, Israel among others have somehow figured out how to make it work... but the so-called 'greatest country on Earth' can't?  GTFOH.

Quote
For every example you have swept the internet to copy and paste on here, I have spoken personally with twice as many servicemen and some servicewomen, both enlisted AND commissioned officer that feel the opposite. But with President Obama having championed the causes of Gays in the military and "equal pay for equal work" for women, it would only follow that "women in combat" would be an agenda to come to the forefront, and it wasn't a fight he was going to lose.....it doesn't mean that it's a good thing. This is not just about the "women" and their "chance" to prove anything.  Like other "Military" personnel have said in examples given by other posters,  you have to see how the troops in the field feel about it and I guarantee you, the majority of them think it's a joke....but keep poring over yuh keyboard.  Yuh say "we" as if you come in parts...but then again, considering that the words "jackass", "c**thole" and "dickhead" are all compound words and, ironically, apply to you, I guess I can see where you would fantasize your opinion to be being more than singular.  Just because everybody has an asshole, doesn't mean than an asshole can speak for everybody. 

I doh have to sweep the internet to find articles on an issue that is currently in the news... but not surprisingly, since you lack any intellectual response to the points presented via the testimony from others, you instead choose to try and discredit what is offered as 'cut and paste', and resorting to meaningless primary school pejoratives about "jackass" and "c**thole" and "dickhead".  If you feel any of that affecting me yuh free to continue fooling yuhself and making yuhself look like ah even bigger ass in de process.

The MLDC isn't going to recommend anything different from what they are, especially if they aren't being completely honest.  You will mostly get honesty from people when you talk to them personally and I know a LOT of people that are in the military.  The "physical standards" remain the man talking point because it is the only tangible, politically correct issue that anybody, the MLDC included, can use.  If YOU had spent some time in the military you would know that, idiot.  No one can talk about the behaviour patterns and address how differently men behave when there's one woman around, much less for more, in a military environment because it would not be PC. (at least, not to talk about what reallygoes on.)  At troop level, it is a legitimate issue.  There actually are women that can meet the "physical standards" both in and out the military.  the truth is, that that is not the only REAL issue.  the roles of women flying fixed and rotary winged aircraft and other combat roles carried out more on the periphery do not compare to those the more (personal) direct combat units in infantry, engineering and special ops.....and that includes Tammy Duckworth's experiences.  You put a bunch of women in a ranger unit and see what will start happening.....Otherwise, put them in an all-female infantry battalion unit and let's see how that works out.  FOH!!  It will never work....but you keep lookin' at israel and Canada......The Japanese used Kamikaze pilots in WWII to great effect....yuh see anybody else forming any commission to start doing it in America? FOH!!           


Not because a man ears long and he teet' long dat it make him a Jackass!

Offline Daft Trini

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 3822
    • View Profile
Re: Pentagon to end ban on women in front-line combat
« Reply #55 on: February 05, 2013, 06:43:16 AM »
I support women in combat! Hell, put GoPro cams on their helmets and unleash them on the muzzies, then run the footage on the military channel 24/7.  :beermug:

Offline asylumseeker

  • Moderator
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 15910
    • View Profile
Re: Pentagon to end ban on women in front-line combat
« Reply #56 on: February 13, 2013, 01:44:39 PM »
Ah channeling dtool ...

Harvard, Howard University Debate Teams to Battle in DC

http://www.howard.edu/newsroom/releases/2013/20130211HarvardHowardUniversityDebateTeamstoBattleinDC.html

WASHINGTON (February 11, 2013) – The Howard University Debate Team will take on rivals from Harvard University on Friday, Feb. 22 at 3 p.m. in Cramton Auditorium. The match up marks the first time a Harvard team has traveled to the Howard campus for a debate. The event is free and open to public.

“Howard is excited to host this historic event on its campus,” Director of Howard University’s MLK Jr. Forensics Program, Angela D. Minor, Esq. said. “Audience members can expect to see an entertaining and educational event.”

Sponsors of the debate include Starbucks and the national chapter of the NAACP. The two teams will debate whether gun manufacturers should be held liable for mass killings and if women should be required to sign up for the Selective Service System.
 
WHAT:          Harvard and Howard University Debate Teams Square Off

WHEN:          Friday, Feb. 22, 2013 at 3 pm.

WHERE:        Cramton Auditorium, 2455 Sixth NW, Washington, D.C. 20059

The event will be streamed live at: https://plus.google.com/events/cu5lrjn82m3po28daqebtfcogu4?authkey=CMizweL5ka6o7wE

"It is not possible to make successful policy in a state of ignorance or indifference to what goes on in the real world." --- Martin Daly.