[Waffen]

Yes 100%
and i do belive they should also pass teh same phsical requirments as men,

[knightRider]

bullets know no gender ...

[.22hustler]

Send them... It's their country too...:AR15firing :

[The_Patriot]

From an equality perspective, I would say yes.

But from a practical, personal experience perspective, I say no.

While I do think women are equal, and they should have the right and responsibility to do anything a man can do, the issue is with morale and battlefield discipline. It's not about HER, it's about the other members of the unit and the problems it could cause.

An example might be a captured woman. I suspect there is a good percentage of men that would make different, and possibly more dangerous, decisions if the captive was a woman instead of a man. That's just one scenario, I believe there are a lot of others.

For those of you that said women should be there, do you really believe you could give orders--in combat, no less--without regard to sex? It's tough. I have been a commander in different situations and it's tough sometimes to make decisions based on sex in peacetime, let alone when you have little time to make life-death decisions.

This is generally the argument against gays in the military, too. It's not about the gay person or their abilities, it's about the morale of the rest of the unit, and how it effects your mission.

When you're in the military, it's about the mission. All else is secondary. And whether you're talking about women or gays in combat, it WILL effect unit cohesion and morale for some, to some degree. And that could very easily impact your ability to accomplish the mission.

[Cudahogs]

No, definately not! I was on a combatant ship for 3 years and an aircraft carrier (the very first to get women stationed on it) for 1 year. Very low morale when women are aboard. Plus, because it was a nuclear powered ship, all they had to do was get pregnant to avoid deployments. I work for a woman now and that's not the issue, living abroad in close quarters and "sharing" the work responsibilities is the issue. Many fine women sailors and soldiers, but they belong in a support role. There's a reason that they still don't register for selective service.
-Fred

[Coeloptera]

Quote:       Originally Posted by LarryO1970

IF a woman can do what any man can, then I say ... why the hell not ? Equal work, equal pay, equal responsibility, equal treatment.

I agree totally. And there should be one standard for a job. You meet it, or you don't. This way everyone will absolutely know the person in that job can do it. If a woman can hump a pack, carry a weapon, march all day, shoot straight, and do all the rest, there's no reason she can't be in the infantry or the Marines.

Heck, lookee here: Woman earns Silver Star in Afghan war - Military- msnbc.com

"Brown, of the 4th Squadron, 73rd Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, said ammunition going off inside the burning Humvee was sending shrapnel in all directions. She said they were sitting in a dangerous spot.
'So we dragged them for 100 or 200 meters, got them away from the Humvee a little bit," she said. 'I was in a kind of a robot-mode, did not think about much but getting the guys taken care of.'"

19-year-old Army Spc. dragged guys through enemy fire, shielded them with her body...won the Silver Star. Obviously she can handle it.

There are, of course, also areas we should be actively encouraging women in, like combat pilots. Physiologically they have a quantifiable edge.

Our culture tries to teach women to be weak. Wouldn't we be the better for it if we encouraged them to be strong? The men will adapt quickly enough if they're enculturated to see women as equals. The Israelis are indeed, a great example. Nobody gets to be "behind the lines" in their nasty little conflicts. May as well ensure they can help defend the nation, right?

I've also seen lots of dead people and believe me, it's no worse to see a dead man than a dead woman after a surprisingly short time. You think a soldier will be more broken up because of the gender of the person they just saw get shot to pieces or blown up? I think the horror is pretty much level by that point.

Do remember, everything being said here about morale is why there were segregated units up until relatively recently. Nobody trusted the blacks or "the Japs" to be in a unit with white guys in WWII either. I dont anyone can argue the greatness of the 442nd or the Tuskeegee Airmen. Our military will adapt, just like it did before, so long as they're properly encouraged to do so.

People can make genderblind decisions, they just have to be shown that they are capable. How many guys dug in and swore the Army would never have integrated units? After a few years of fighting, they stopped caring.

As for capture...who here doesn't think male soldiers are subject to sexual assault?

- Coeloptera

[roadie]

Yes plain and simple, no reason why they shouldn't....I wouldn't think they joined to get the stylish duds.

[rondog]

I voted no. Only the Rosie O'Donnell types should go into harm's way. JMHO.

[captsquirrel]

Several years ago I was a ramp boss at an airshow. We had a B-1 arrive and what an arrival it was. I thought I want to meet that pilot. And I did. I don't recall her name but her call sign was she-ra. It was a privilege to shake her hand.
Now if she can go drop bombs on the enemy why can't a woman take up a rifle and shoot the enemy? As long as they have the physical ability I'm all for it.

[SuckLead]

I said yes, and I will agree with what a few others said... women should have to pass the exact same physical fitness requirnments as men. It is only fair. A lot of police departments are starting to get on the ball on with that part of it now and it would be nice to see the military do it as well. I never understood why a man who is smaller than me has to qualify at a harder test than I would have to. It doesn't make sense to me.

[B 'n B]

Quote:       Originally Posted by rondog

I voted no. Only the Rosie O'Donnell types should go into harm's way. JMHO.

If we sent them we wouldn't need any men - they'd scare the shit outta Al Quaeda

[Seabeescotty]

I decided not to vote, since I'm not sure ther bar will EVER be set at the same level for both men and women. And I was in the service,when women were allowed to go into more positions, than ever before. We had a problem with it, because they coudn't be deployed with a battalion, in hardship, or combat deployments. Morale suffered, as they flooded all the state jobs, and left the rest of us with no choices, for stateside duty.

If the bar is the same for all, then so be it, but the bar has to be the same for all. If a female can lift as much, go as far, and last as long, put her wherever she wants to be. But, if she can't toe the line, it makes it more difficult for those who serve with her. It places a burden on those, who have to take up the slack.

As far as homosexuals, in the service, I'm against it, and not because I'm a homophobe, as some will be sure to point and accuse. I was in uniform, for a long time, and experienced some of the problems caused, by having them in the same unit. It kills morale, and makes folks worry about things they shouldn't have to worry about, in that situation. An example: One of our Seabees got his throat slit, by a homosexual, who tried to assault him on the beach. When he resisted, the guy pulled a knife, and swung at him. Luckily, it didn't hit the artery, or he'd never have made it to the dispensary. The homosexual, who also happened to be black, was sent back to the states, courtmartialed, and dishonorably discharged, with no prison time. His only time behind bars was during the courtmartial.

If you've never been there, don't try to judge me, as I've already explained, my views are from experience, not prejudice.

[Todd Bayliss]

As long as a woman can do the job, I guess it would be all right but I foresee problems that wouldn't otherwise come up.

The biggest problem I have with it is that I'm quite old fashioned. If we men are doing our job properly, the ladies shouldn't have to be on the line.

[Jim Rau]

Very few of us who have actually been in combat would say yes, definitely.
The logistics alone are a big problem, not to mention the psychological problems and the dynamics of the interactions. And the physical ability difference.

[DaTeacha]

I gave it an I don't know. I think it takes a certain mentality to be in combat in the first place. Combat cannot be explained to or understood by those who have never been there. By combat, I mean shooting at and being shot at with intent to kill. I haven't been there. I know people who have. They all tell me I don't want to find out what it's like firsthand.

I don't think we need gung-ho hero wannabe types out there, but I don't think we need the hide in the back room personality either. What we need is a reinstated draft that includes all able bodied citizens. The training should be the same for all, and the training officers should be able to determine who has the right personality to function as part of an effective team. I know women whom I would rather have with me than some men I know. It depends on the person involved, not their sex, size, or whatever. Different jobs require different skill sets. A guy may be able to carry a heavier pack, but a woman may have a cooler head under stress.

[Coeloptera]

Quote:       Originally Posted by Seabeescotty

If you've never been there, don't try to judge me, as I've already explained, my views are from experience, not prejudice.

...and yet HARDERTR, who is currently in and over there, has an opposite viewpoint.

Interesting, don't you agree?

I wonder why you focused on the gay part of the psycho-in-question and not the "psycho" part? Heck, you wanna see the same argument why married men shouldn't be in the service, using the same logic?

snopes.com: Beheaded Lover

Read that. It's pretty nightmarish. Using the same logic you did to say homosexuals shouldn't be in the service, by the example I posted, married men shouldn't be allowed in.

Now please be aware I am not getting down on your opinion. I am specifically pointing out a flaw in your logic that may derive from a pre-existing prejudice you aren't even aware of having.

To examine that, ask yourself, "What if the victim had been a woman and the attacker a heterosexual male?" Is your first instinct to say that women shouldn't be in the service?

If so, why did your answer change from removing the attacker to removing the victim?

Keeping in mind that my hypothetical example has actually occurred at a much higher rate than your example, please explain the thought-process behind not stating that heterosexual males are not a good match for the service using the same logic you used in your example from experience.

I find that sometimes, showing someone, specifically, how critical thinking works can help them recognize something in themselves they may not be aware of.

No malice, just interest.

- Coeloptera
(Speaking of...anyone know where HARDERTR's gotten off to, lately?)

[The_Patriot]

Quote:       Originally Posted by Coeloptera

I agree totally. And there should be one standard for a job. You meet it, or you don't. This way everyone will absolutely know the person in that job can do it. If a woman can hump a pack, carry a weapon, march all day, shoot straight, and do all the rest, there's no reason she can't be in the infantry or the Marines. Heck, lookee here: Woman earns Silver Star in Afghan war - Military- msnbc.com "Brown, of the 4th Squadron, 73rd Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, said ammunition going off inside the burning Humvee was sending shrapnel in all directions. She said they were sitting in a dangerous spot. 'So we dragged them for 100 or 200 meters, got them away from the Humvee a little bit," she said. 'I was in a kind of a robot-mode, did not think about much but getting the guys taken care of.'" 19-year-old Army Spc. dragged guys through enemy fire, shielded them with her body...won the Silver Star. Obviously she can handle it. There are, of course, also areas we should be actively encouraging women in, like combat pilots. Physiologically they have a quantifiable edge. Our culture tries to teach women to be weak. Wouldn't we be the better for it if we encouraged them to be strong? The men will adapt quickly enough if they're enculturated to see women as equals. The Israelis are indeed, a great example. Nobody gets to be "behind the lines" in their nasty little conflicts. May as well ensure they can help defend the nation, right? I've also seen lots of dead people and believe me, it's no worse to see a dead man than a dead woman after a surprisingly short time. You think a soldier will be more broken up because of the gender of the person they just saw get shot to pieces or blown up? I think the horror is pretty much level by that point. Do remember, everything being said here about morale is why there were segregated units up until relatively recently. Nobody trusted the blacks or "the Japs" to be in a unit with white guys in WWII either. I dont anyone can argue the greatness of the 442nd or the Tuskeegee Airmen. Our military will adapt, just like it did before, so long as they're properly encouraged to do so. People can make genderblind decisions, they just have to be shown that they are capable. How many guys dug in and swore the Army would never have integrated units? After a few years of fighting, they stopped caring. As for capture...who here doesn't think male soldiers are subject to sexual assault? - Coeloptera

You're a smart dude, but man, you sometimes make things sound so easy.

Sure, there aren't one-size-fits-all answers in life, but as a former officer that saw gender-based morale issues, dealing with it in real life is not that easy. I saw probably 12-15 instances in my career where a female came into an all-male workplace or unit and caused all sorts of problems. Although it WAS NOT HER FAULT in the least, it still caused a rift in morale that caused me to shift attention from our mission to dealing with petty issues. I had to recommend two people for discharge once because it got so bad.

I'm not suggesting that's always the case, it isn't. But I saw it enough to know that it does cause problems. That's just MY experience. Others may have different experiences.

I wish the world was all rainbows and ponies. I wish everyone got along. I wish women, gays and little people could all serve seamlessly with your average 6-foot testosterone-filled 20-year-old guy, but it just doesn't happen that way in the real world.

I'm not against progress. My only point is that it's easy to present a solution when you haven't had to walk a mile in those shoes.

[Pope130]

Sure, provided she volunteers, meets the standards and can do the job. Women are citizens.

I served in combat with a number of women. They did the job as well or better than the average man (possibly because they knew any failure on their part would stand out as a failure for women, where a man who screwed-up was just a screw-up).

Robert Klaus MSgt USAF Ret.

[TXplt]

Yes. Absolutely.

[nathangdad]

that the traditional "front" becomes harder to define and find. Conflict is different than WW2. It is more and more a vague area more truly described as a theater of combat. So, the question becomes moot.
To be in the greater theater of combat is to be possibly in life or death combat.