Switch Theme:

Pentagon to open combat roles for women  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Hallowed Canoness





The Void

 AustonT wrote:
 Hordini wrote:
I don't think there are many people who don't recognize that women have been in combat. There are plenty of women who have received combat action ribbons, combat action badges, and awards for valor in combat.

Yeah it's a good thing we will always have someone to look at when we talk about women in combat.


We learned about her in Marine Corps boot camp. It was explained in detail that if one of us pulled a "Lynch" by being an incompetent moron who can't even maintain one's weapon and know how to fight back against an enemy attack except by curling up in a truck and crying, that our DIs would pray to the gods of battle and Chesty Puller that we were beheaded on camera quickly so lives weren't risked attempting to rescue our useless hides.

I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long


SoB, IG, SM, SW, Nec, Cus, Tau, FoW Germans, Team Yankee Marines, Battletech Clan Wolf, Mercs
DR:90-SG+M+B+I+Pw40k12+ID+++A+++/are/WD-R+++T(S)DM+ 
   
Made in us
Imperial Admiral




 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
We learned about her in Marine Corps boot camp. It was explained in detail that if one of us pulled a "Lynch" by being an incompetent moron who can't even maintain one's weapon and know how to fight back against an enemy attack except by curling up in a truck and crying, that our DIs would pray to the gods of battle and Chesty Puller that we were beheaded on camera quickly so lives weren't risked attempting to rescue our useless hides.

Marine DIs still use Chesty Puller references? I find that pretty great.
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Hordini wrote:
I don't think there are many people who don't recognize that women have been in combat. There are plenty of women who have received combat action ribbons, combat action badges, and awards for valor in combat.


Yeah, it's widely recognised that women have and will continue to be in combat. That's why this isn't about that at all.

It's about the idea that there's a law on the books saying 'don't put women in front line combat units' that's looking increasingly out of date because the formal divide between front line and support units is largely theoretical in an assymetric war. Not only because there's no real front line, but also because many missions undertaken require the use of support troops. Which leads to the haziness of trying to figure out if its legal to attach a female to a mission.

I mean, if the best qualified medic on duty is a woman, is it okay to send her in on a helicopter to pull wounded out of a situation? What if the unit on the ground is still under fire? What if they expect they might come under fire again?

Best to just drop that entirely bad piece of law, and let commanders deploy their troops according to the needs of the situation.

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Leerstetten, Germany

I'm amazed that mixed genders can work together in any job in the world, but as soon as you give them a gun they start fething each other because they can't control themselves?

Get real...

Every job I have ever worked has rules and regulations about couples being in a supervisory position over one another.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/25 07:22:47


 
   
Made in us
Imperial Admiral




 d-usa wrote:
I'm amazed that mixed genders can work together in any job in the world, but as soon as you give them a gun they start fething each other because they can't control themselves?

Get real...

Every job I have ever worked has rules and regulations about couples being in a supervisory position over one another.

How many of those jobs involved putting you on a boat for six months and preventing you from getting off?
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Leerstetten, Germany

 Seaward wrote:
 d-usa wrote:
I'm amazed that mixed genders can work together in any job in the world, but as soon as you give them a gun they start fething each other because they can't control themselves?

Get real...

Every job I have ever worked has rules and regulations about couples being in a supervisory position over one another.

How many of those jobs involved putting you on a boat for six months and preventing you from getting off?


I've yet to meet a soldier that doesn't get off, even if the sign in the shower says it's prohibited.
   
Made in us
Imperial Admiral




 d-usa wrote:
I've yet to meet a soldier that doesn't get off, even if the sign in the shower says it's prohibited.

Cute. My point was more that combat arms jobs in the military tend to be a bit less like the 9 to 5 of an office than corporate opinion around here apparently thinks.

Beyond the fraternization issue, though, is the simple readiness issue. I'll say it again: if women could reliably make male physical fitness standards, we wouldn't have lowered standards for women in the first place.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Leerstetten, Germany

 Seaward wrote:
 d-usa wrote:
I've yet to meet a soldier that doesn't get off, even if the sign in the shower says it's prohibited.

Cute. My point was more that combat arms jobs in the military tend to be a bit less like the 9 to 5 of an office than corporate opinion around here apparently thinks.


Yet many armed forces, and jobs where you spend entire days and/or weeks together, have managed without turning into sudden orgies.

Beyond the fraternization issue, though, is the simple readiness issue. I'll say it again: if women could reliably make male physical fitness standards, we wouldn't have lowered standards for women in the first place.


I can see having lower standards if they were for jobs where lower standards are accpetable, but then they should be lower for the men in the same position as well. I agree with the whole "let them be equal if they pass equal tests" part though.
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Seaward wrote:
How many of those jobs involved putting you on a boat for six months and preventing you from getting off?


What the hell? Women have been serving on naval boats since the 70s. They've been on combat boats, except submarines, since the early 90s.

What decade are you posting from?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Seaward wrote:
Beyond the fraternization issue, though, is the simple readiness issue. I'll say it again: if women could reliably make male physical fitness standards, we wouldn't have lowered standards for women in the first place.


Please just read the thread. You'll learn all kinds of things.

You'd learn that standards aren't being lowered for women through this. You'd learn any women who isn't capable of meeting the requirements of frontline troops... will still be denied the right to serve. You'd learn this is about recognising that the women who already meet the requirements for their particular specialisations will no longer have an arbitrary 'cannot be assigned to missions supporting front line units' that don't apply to men in the same specialisations as themselves.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/25 08:15:35


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Imperial Admiral




 sebster wrote:
What the hell? Women have been serving on naval boats since the 70s. They've been on combat boats, except submarines, since the early 90s.

What decade are you posting from?

The decade where trains get pulled in the fo'c'sle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 sebster wrote:

Please just read the thread. You'll learn all kinds of things.

You'd learn that standards aren't being lowered for women through this. You'd learn any women who isn't capable of meeting the requirements of frontline troops... will still be denied the right to serve. You'd learn this is about recognising that the women who already meet the requirements for their particular specialisations will no longer have an arbitrary 'cannot be assigned to missions supporting front line units' that don't apply to men in the same specialisations as themselves.

What on earth are you talking about, sebster? Women are assigned to front line units all the time.

Exactly how many guys with direct US military experience do you need in this thread telling you that most women are not going to be able to meet the necessary physical requirements for your average combat arms MOS?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/25 08:20:00


 
   
Made in us
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






Pleasant Valley, Iowa

 AustonT wrote:
Yeah it's a good thing we will always have someone to look at when we talk about women in combat.


The Captain who got that convoy lost and then ambushed was a man. Clearly, by this logic, men have no place in combat roles. Certainly, no man was every captured by the enemy.



We're really painting an entire gender with a PR fiasco brush drummed up by the Pentagon, to which Lynch had absolutely no knowledge or control?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/25 08:37:47


 lord_blackfang wrote:
Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.

 Flinty wrote:
The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
 
   
Made in us
Hallowed Canoness





The Void

 Seaward wrote:
 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
We learned about her in Marine Corps boot camp. It was explained in detail that if one of us pulled a "Lynch" by being an incompetent moron who can't even maintain one's weapon and know how to fight back against an enemy attack except by curling up in a truck and crying, that our DIs would pray to the gods of battle and Chesty Puller that we were beheaded on camera quickly so lives weren't risked attempting to rescue our useless hides.

Marine DIs still use Chesty Puller references? I find that pretty great.


Dude do Christians still talk about Jesus? Seriously if a day went by in the Marine Corps where I didn't hear Chesty Puller's name used at least once I was either slumming it at a Navy command, or I was on crew rest and asleep all day.

I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long


SoB, IG, SM, SW, Nec, Cus, Tau, FoW Germans, Team Yankee Marines, Battletech Clan Wolf, Mercs
DR:90-SG+M+B+I+Pw40k12+ID+++A+++/are/WD-R+++T(S)DM+ 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





CL VI Store in at the Cyber Center of Excellence

 AustonT wrote:
 Hordini wrote:
I don't think there are many people who don't recognize that women have been in combat. There are plenty of women who have received combat action ribbons, combat action badges, and awards for valor in combat.

Yeah it's a good thing we will always have someone to look at when we talk about women in combat.


A really good read on that ambush: https://rdl.train.army.mil/catalog/view/100.ATSC/A1FC54FA-991C-43FD-A268-A06F3289994A-1308719337037/158-L-4003/158-L-4003.PDF

The bottom line is they were very poorly trained, and VERY poorly led. It had nothing to do with the sex of the troopers involved. I've got some personal insight into it I'll share over a cold beer.

I suggest a better picture is this one:



Her last name is Hester if you can't make it out. Look up her story. It is a sin that Hollywood didn't grab that story and run with it.

I will say that this new policy as is, is not a bad thing and in fact is good. It will be used as a first step in an attempt to integrate females into combat arms (infantry and armor specifically). I believe that with all my heart. I also believe that is not a good move. It has nothing to do with unit cohesion. It takes time and effort but trust me, combat arms NCOs and officers will do what they are told and will ensure the troops do too. It has more to do with cost/benefit. I can get into it but it will go way off topic.

Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings. 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

 AustonT wrote:
Hooray for lowered standards! Delta here I come.
I had dreamed this day would come.

I've got destroyed knees, a nice old man gut, and now a man papoose to carry TBone in if needed. But I'm a badass veteran at shooting spitwads. Am I qualified?

Thinking back at some of my former chicka girlfriends, yea, you wouldn't want to be on the business end of that.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/25 12:13:10


-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






d-usa wrote:I'm amazed that mixed genders can work together in any job in the world, but as soon as you give them a gun they start fething each other because they can't control themselves?

Get real...

Every job I have ever worked has rules and regulations about couples being in a supervisory position over one another.

I think perhaps you are overestimating the maturity level of the average fighting man and woman.

[quote=CptJake
Spoiler:
]
 AustonT wrote:
 Hordini wrote:
I don't think there are many people who don't recognize that women have been in combat. There are plenty of women who have received combat action ribbons, combat action badges, and awards for valor in combat.

Yeah it's a good thing we will always have someone to look at when we talk about women in combat.


A really good read on that ambush: https://rdl.train.army.mil/catalog/view/100.ATSC/A1FC54FA-991C-43FD-A268-A06F3289994A-1308719337037/158-L-4003/158-L-4003.PDF

The bottom line is they were very poorly trained, and VERY poorly led. It had nothing to do with the sex of the troopers involved. I've got some personal insight into it I'll share over a cold beer.

I suggest a better picture is this one:



Her last name is Hester if you can't make it out. Look up her story. It is a sin that Hollywood didn't grab that story and run with it.

I will say that this new policy as is, is not a bad thing and in fact is good. It will be used as a first step in an attempt to integrate females into combat arms (infantry and armor specifically). I believe that with all my heart. I also believe that is not a good move. It has nothing to do with unit cohesion. It takes time and effort but trust me, combat arms NCOs and officers will do what they are told and will ensure the troops do too. It has more to do with cost/benefit. I can get into it but it will go way off topic.

In case you hadn't noticed Jake I'm taking this thread less than seriously. The sad reality is that SGT Hester is just another in a long line of brave soldiers that will be remembered by a plaque in a DFAC or a sandwich board at an obstacle course, but PFC Lynch will live in infamy forever.

 Avatar 720 wrote:
You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.

Come check out my Blood Angels,Crimson Fists, and coming soon Eldar
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/391013.page
I have conceded that the Eldar page I started in P&M is their legitimate home. Free Candy! Updated 10/19.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/391553.page
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Seaward wrote:

What on earth are you talking about, sebster? Women are assigned to front line units all the time.


That's right, they are, despite the 1994 law banning it. Which is the whole point of this reform, and something I've now explained three times, and twice now just for your sake..

In all seriousness are you okay? Like, I know we butt heads a lot but it seems like in the last few threads you really just haven't been keeping up with the most basic parts of the conversation. For you to miss the most basic, starting point in this thread, I mean that isn't good. I'm not trying to score points on you here or anything, if you say something I'll lay off.

Exactly how many guys with direct US military experience do you need in this thread telling you that most women are not going to be able to meet the necessary physical requirements for your average combat arms MOS?


None, given I said the same thing in my first post. I latter posted that this is not about lowering standards so women qualify for front line combat units, butabout making sense of the women already qualified in their specialties.

If you'd read and comprehended any of that then you would not have asked that question. But you asked it, so it really does seem like what I've posted in this thread just hasn't sunk in at all. Seriously, are you okay?

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Imperial Admiral




 sebster wrote:
That's right, they are, despite the 1994 law banning it. Which is the whole point of this reform, and something I've now explained three times, and twice now just for your sake..

I'd go back and have someone explain it to you, then, before you start trying to explain it to someone else. The ban on combat arms postings doesn't conflict with the fact that a lot of women find themselves involved in combat in our various two-way ranges, many of them, it must be said, with distinction.

None, given I said the same thing in my first post. I latter posted that this is not about lowering standards so women qualify for front line combat units, butabout making sense of the women already qualified in their specialties.

But none of them are currently in a 'combat' MOS, so why would we need to open those up in order for them to "make sense" in their current career track?
   
Made in us
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






Pleasant Valley, Iowa

 AustonT wrote:
In case you hadn't noticed Jake I'm taking this thread less than seriously. The sad reality is that SGT Hester is just another in a long line of brave soldiers that will be remembered by a plaque in a DFAC or a sandwich board at an obstacle course, but PFC Lynch will live in infamy forever.


Yeah, I think I missed the subtlety there. I'd not heard of Sgt. Hester previously, making the point doubly true I suppose.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.

 Flinty wrote:
The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Mesopotamia. The Kingdom Where we Secretly Reign.

 Ouze wrote:
The Captain who got that convoy lost and then ambushed was a man. Clearly, by this logic, men have no place in combat roles. Certainly, no man was every captured by the enemy.



That was a pretty bad example to use there to anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of the two cases involved.

Drink deeply and lustily from the foamy draught of evil.
W: 1.756 Quadrillion L: 0 D: 2
Haters gon' hate. 
   
Made in us
Member of the Ethereal Council






 AustonT wrote:
Hooray for lowered standards! Delta here I come.
I had dreamed this day would come.

Hey, the fat stops the bullets.

5000pts 6000pts 3000pts
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






I recieved this today and thought I would share it.

My take on the latest decision by SECDEF and JCS on allowing women into Combat Arms specialties…BLUF….will be a disaster for our military….allow me to expand:
#1. This is an open letter to my former students (hundreds of US Army Officers), friends currently in service or retired and civilian relations and friends….
1a. my bone fides….I spent over 20 years in military service, both US Navy and US Army, in both Combat Arms and Combat Service units…and then 10 years training students to become US Army Officers….so I do have some knowledge and definitely a “dog in this hunt”….
1b. I welcome comments from my friends and former students, however, I caution my active duty friends that this decision has been made, so be cautious about what you write….there are always a few BF’s out there who may try to use your comments against you
2. Folks, first let me say that many of the women I’ve served with and trained are some of the best soldiers this country has produced. I have little doubt that my daughter could serve honorably as an officer in in our Armed Forces. I also recognize that many of our female soldiers are involved in combat actions, and perform courageously. But there is a huge difference between being a troop in a convoy or FOB and a combat rifleman on patrol.
3. Less than 1% of our citizens serve or have served in our Armed Forces. Let me put it bluntly, women will die exponentially if they are placed within Army combat arms units. We are just begging for trouble with this new law. Civilians see our actions on TV and think that we are like SWAT units on steroids. SWAT units don’t spend months out in a Combat Outpost (COP) without toilet facilities. Imagine your daughter or sister assigned to a unit that is required to spend several months out in the bush without separate sleeping or restroom facilities? When US civilians welcome Bisexual bathrooms then I believe that we may be closer to being ready for this change.
4. I believe that it will also result in more sexual harassment issues and/or complaints…also how do we replace a female soldier in a COP who happens to get pregnant on the line?
5. I could probably embrace this more if the Army Standards for men and women were the same. I just administered (probably) my 120th Army Physical Fitness test today…..in order to pass a woman needs to complete 19 pushups versus a male’s 42, and a two mile run by a woman is successful at just under 19 minutes, while her male counterpart has to beat her by 3 minutes. There are other physical standards required by Combat Arms units. IF the requirements were the same and are not watered down, I would feel more comfortable supporting this move. Unfortunately, I don’t think that that action meets with this Administration’s desires or end-state. “The Incredibles” anybody?
6. I expect that some combat positions, especially in our sister services could open up without reducing combat readiness. Perhaps piloting an F-16 or being in charge of a naval gunnery section would work. Even an Apache gunner in the Army could be female without impacting Readiness. Alas, I believe that a lot of reasoned, considered and accurate suggestions will be waived away with the political correctness wand wielded by our current government.
In that case I say sorry, and FIDO. I welcome any feedback from you guys and gals in the field.
Hooah

 Avatar 720 wrote:
You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.

Come check out my Blood Angels,Crimson Fists, and coming soon Eldar
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/391013.page
I have conceded that the Eldar page I started in P&M is their legitimate home. Free Candy! Updated 10/19.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/391553.page
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
 
   
Made in us
Fate-Controlling Farseer





Fort Campbell

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Hey, the fat stops the bullets.


Mythbusters debunked that one.

Full Frontal Nerdity 
   
Made in us
Crazed Savage Orc





I do not support this. If they go through with it, there will be a negative impact on the combat effectiveness of any given unit. Guaranteed, especially in infantry. I have all respect for female service members, but due to everything already discussed, it would be a mistake.

The following measures MAY reduce that impact on combat effectiveness:

1) Females must meet same exact standards, to include the ability to conduct long movements with heavy combat loads (can be in excess of 100 lbs), be able to execute all battle drills while tired, and deal with sleep deprivation while pulling security after long marches and maneuvers.
2) Total, 100%, zero tolerance policy on relationships or flirting between troops within the same unit. Probably for troops in the same unit at least 4 echelons removed (no relationships within the same company level in most cases). No relationships period while deployed overseas.
3) Women need to adjust to the mores and values of the unit they are going to. I know it sounds silly, but I would argue they need to have the same haircuts as well to assist in unit cohesion.

They can’t get this straight in support units yet, never mind combat arms.

If the services decide to reduce standards to accommodate women in combat arms units, it will have a HUGE impact when we fight the next conflict on a level with Vietnam or the Korean War.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 djones520 wrote:
 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Hey, the fat stops the bullets.


Mythbusters debunked that one.


On an episode of Cops, they had a heavy set guy claim a .22 pistol round bounced off is leg, and an officer on the scene confirmed he had seen that before. Must have been a ricochet or a very weird vector.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/01/25 23:13:52


WHFB 3000 pts
40k 1000 pts
40k 1000 pts 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





West Michigan, deep in Whitebread, USA

Seems to me that every time a female soldier has a mortar round land near her, she is "in combat".

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/25 23:35:45




"By this point I'm convinced 100% that every single race in the 40k universe have somehow tapped into the ork ability to just have their tech work because they think it should."  
   
Made in us
[DCM]
The Main Man






Beast Coast

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Seems to me that every time a female soldier has a mortar round land near her, she is "in combat".




Well, yeah. Was anyone claiming otherwise?

   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





West Michigan, deep in Whitebread, USA

Well, up til now, evidently, the Pentagon.

I'm glad that's changing, though. Other than the fact that I think they should obviously meet the same requirements that exist for men at the moment, I disagree with nearly every goofy reason that's been put forth that claims that women shouldn't be allowed "in combat".

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/01/26 00:04:26




"By this point I'm convinced 100% that every single race in the 40k universe have somehow tapped into the ork ability to just have their tech work because they think it should."  
   
Made in us
[DCM]
The Main Man






Beast Coast

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Well, up til now, evidently, the Pentagon.



They were never claiming that women don't see combat. Plenty of women have been awarded combat action ribbons/badges and awards for valor.

What they were doing is not allowing women to have military occupational specialties that were considered "combat arms" (usually things like infantry, armor, artillery, etc.), and they also were not assigning women to combat arms units below brigade level. Nobody was ever pretending that women didn't actually see combat.

   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





CL VI Store in at the Cyber Center of Excellence

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Well, up til now, evidently, the Pentagon.

I'm glad that's changing, though. Other than the fact that I think they should obviously meet the same requirements that exist for men at the moment, I disagree with nearly every goofy reason that's been put forth that claims that women shouldn't be allowed "in combat".


Yeah, because creating and then awarding out a new award recognizing combat action (CAB or Combat Action Badge) for non-infantry troops and awarding that to females (and males) for combat action meant they were ignoring that those individuals participated in combat. Not to mention awards for valor in combat given to females (like SGT Hester shown previously).




At least attempt to make your points based on facts.

Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings. 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





West Michigan, deep in Whitebread, USA

Gotta love sudden nasty attacks. Sheesh.

Sorry I don't know everything a serviceman knows.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/26 00:46:22




"By this point I'm convinced 100% that every single race in the 40k universe have somehow tapped into the ork ability to just have their tech work because they think it should."  
   
Made in us
[DCM]
The Main Man






Beast Coast

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Gotta love sudden nasty attacks. Sheesh.

Sorry I don't know everything a serviceman knows.



Dude, no one is being nasty and you don't have to know everything a serviceman knows. If you had read the rest of the thread, you would already know that the Pentagon was never trying to hide that women have been in combat overseas and many have received recognition for it. Several of us have mentioned it several times in this thread.

   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: