[DogRomeo]

Quote:       Originally Posted by blueice

Shooter Girl, I am not contesting a leadership role, but rather the fox hole... , God created man and women to be compatible, but different and for good reasons. Moreover, to maintain the human race, women are far more important than men...

You forgot to mention the word "equal" somewhere in there. Don't go down this road man, not even cool. Show respect. She's making good points.
DR

[DogRomeo]

Quote:       Originally Posted by cjleete

This argument is now moot, in my opinion. Women have been on the front lines since we sent them to Iraq, in "non-combat" roles. They are driving and riding trucks and humvees in convoys that routinely came under attack, and manning up crew-served weapons and returning fire. Thus they have been in combat. Of course, they can't be infantry, so they are not eligible for the CIB. Somone tell me if the Army department has cooked up something for these brave folk, since they can't get a CIB (Combat Infantryman Badge).

That's exactly what I said...on the last page.

[blueice]

Quote:       Originally Posted by DogRomeo

You forgot to mention the word "equal" somewhere in there. Don't go down this road man, not even cool. Show respect. She's making good points. DR

Yeah man it aint cool.....

All things are equal, right man!!

[Shooter Girl]

Quote:       Originally Posted by chucksnee

Look I'm not arguing that "some women" could serve on the front line....but the majority cannot, no matter what...you have to bring in all the physcial factors that go along with being a man and a woman...you cannot take that away...no matter what you do.

Which is why you have them held to the same standard. If you hold everyone to the same standard, then the women who can not hack it don't make it.

[DogRomeo]

Quote:       Originally Posted by blueice

Yeah man it aint cool..... All things are equal, right man!!

Are you REALLY trying to make fun of what I said?
Freakin' troglodyte can't think of a response so this is what happens. How unintelligent. If you read my earlier posts you'd see that I have some strong feelings on the matter, but the 1st impression I just got from you has lead me to conclude that this isn't the type of conversation that will produce much mental stimulation between us. I'm outta here, enjoy the nonsense. Feel free to get the last word in, I don't find it necessary to do so in this case.
DR

[SightNSqueeze]

In the early 90s when it was decided to allow women in certain direct support functions of combat units in the Army, Navy, and Air Force, the use of women ended up with women going from motor transport, maintenance, recovery, and military police to those same functions in direct combat with 11 Bravo types. That wasn't in the original plan. When women were permitted to serve aboard support ships in the Navy, they soon found themselves serving aboard combat men-of-war like carriers, cruisers, destroyers and frigates. That wasn't part of the original plan either. Now, the number of women killed in Iraq operations, though in the low hundreds, is still proportionally high compared to the same proportion of men that were in combat operations.

In a naval war with a technologically advanced maritime enemy, we will see the use of overwhelming numbers of advanced high yield cruise weapons that can incinerate ships will all personnel aboard. We will see casualties in a single strike that will match all of the casualties of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11. While the Army was able to scale back the presence of women in direct combat in Iraq, the Navy will have to go in harm's way with the men and women already qualified on the particular systems aboard particular ships. Cross training between ships, even ships of the same class is more involved than land based weapons systems. There won’t be time to scale back women off of surface combatants before the shooting starts. To make matters worse, there is a purely political move taking place by administration supporters within an increasingly left leaning Navy to put women on submarines in spite of previous and damning Department of the Navy studies that they will negatively affect the fighting cohesiveness and cutting edge advantages presently enjoyed by all male submarine crews.

In all of this, only the Marine Corps has stayed above the fray. In the Marines, all female warriors (and they’re all warriors) are trained to fight like infantry, armed and expected to fight at any time, but never, as a matter of routine, placed in harm’s way. The “Marine model” which dared to define the differences between men and women in the modern battle space was created in spite of pressure from the Clinton Administration to “just comply” while the other services reluctantly but obediently complied with the political correctness of the day. Now the other services are paying the price. So far, the Army has shown an effort to reevaluate this ill-conceived policy. Perhaps the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations can learn something from their belligerent Marines before it is too late.

[EtherialOne]

After doing 20yrs in the Navy I have to say the subject is a mixed bag of tricks... and in this poll I voted YES for the reasons below.

THEN:
I remember that for most of my time in, women were not allowed on combat ships or units, and that was Ok by me as most of the women that I served with generally were not as capable as the men, largely I believe due to our culture and upbringing at the time more than anything else. To make this situation more irritating there were double standards for physical requirements and many of the billets that were counted as "Sea Duty" for women either counted as neutral or sometimes even Shore Duty for men. This caused a lot of animosity because men ended up with longer sea rotations and less chance of overseas duty etc. (this was esp. true in the aviation community where most sea billets were on carriers or combat aircraft squadrons). So that was how it was...

NOW:
In the mid 90's (if memory serves) that all changed and women were allowed on Combatants. And I have to say that from my experience it worked out better than I expected it to. There were some problems with mixing in a large number of 18-22 year olds in a co-ed environment, but fortunately the chain of command handled the problems fairly. and overall I believe that there was only a minor impact in readiness. I still disagreed with the amount of gap in physical requirements between the sexes as combat ready is combat ready, bombs and bullets don't recognize gender and weather you're running from foxhole to foxhole dodging bullets or fighting a fire in the bowels of a ship in the middle of the ocean physical requirements should stand for all the same.

In my eyes the real bottom line is that with proper training and the right culture (which to a degree has happened and is continuing to happen) where gender doesn't limit a persons potential career choices or allow favoritism- both of which very negatively impact any teams ability to effectively function. I believe it is EVERY servicemembers duty to both be prepared for and expect to if needed be in the line of fire... Remember every enlisted member takes the same Oath of Enlistment (slightly different for National Guard):


I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.