BREAKING: GI Jane to Combat

The U.S. military is ending its policy of excluding women from combat and will open combat jobs and direct combat units to female troops, CNN has learned. Multiple officials confirm to CNN that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta will make the announcement tomorrow and notify Congress of the planned change in policy.

“We will eliminate the policy of ‘no women in units that are tasked with direct combat,’” a senior defense official says.

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/23/military-to-open-combat-jobs-to-women/

Yo mama wears combat boots.

Senior defense officials say Pentagon chief Leon Panetta is removing the military's ban on women serving in combat, opening hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs after more than a decade at war.

The groundbreaking move recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff overturns a 1994 rule prohibiting women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units. Panetta's decision gives the military services until January 2016 to seek special exceptions if they believe any positions must remain closed to women.

http://news.yahoo.com/ap-sources-panetta-opens-combat-roles-women-203034238--politics.html

Special exceptions will allow strict standards to be adhered to, yet giving opportunity to the most qualified people regardless of their sex.

There's no way this doesn't reduce combat effectiveness of these affected units. Women will not make the same standards that the males have to adhere to. Heck, some men don't make the standards.

The Marines tried this last summer/fall. The two women volunteers both dropped out on request.

The only way women are integrated into these units in significant numbers is to lower the standards.

More social engineering by the powers that be who will never have to "strap it on" and take it to the enemy in these conditions. Talk about hypocrisy.

2seaoat wrote:Special exceptions will allow strict standards to be adhered to, yet giving opportunity to the most qualified people regardless of their sex.

There should be no special exceptions. If you can't make the ruck sack march in the prescribed time, you don't pack the gear to serve.

If you can't make the prescribed swim time, you don't pack the gear to serve.

If you can't do the run in full gear as required, you don't pack the gear to serve.

There are no "exceptions" in a combat situation. The Taliban isn't going to care that you are tired when the fire fight starts. They aren't going to jump out from behind the rock and let you take another well aimed shot when you miss the first time because you are breathing too hard to keep proper sight alignment because you are too out of shape to be in that situation in the first place.

This WILL get someone killed. I can't wait to see some 125 pound female with full battle rattle on trying to do a fireman's carry on a fellow male military member who weighs 225 pounds without any gear on whatsover.

J-O-K-E

It's much worse than a joke... it's another stupid example of ideologic intent over the reality of results.

That being said... if a woman meets all requirements and wants to do it... good luck. Not my daughters tho.

I have completely changed my mind on this...if they want to run with the big dogs letem....

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

2seaoat wrote:Special exceptions will allow strict standards to be adhered to, yet giving opportunity to the most qualified people regardless of their sex.

There should be no special exceptions. If you can't make the ruck sack march in the prescribed time, you don't pack the gear to serve.

If you can't make the prescribed swim time, you don't pack the gear to serve.

If you can't do the run in full gear as required, you don't pack the gear to serve.

There are no "exceptions" in a combat situation. The Taliban isn't going to care that you are tired when the fire fight starts. They aren't going to jump out from behind the rock and let you take another well aimed shot when you miss the first time because you are breathing too hard to keep proper sight alignment because you are too out of shape to be in that situation in the first place.

This WILL get someone killed. I can't wait to see some 125 pound female with full battle rattle on trying to do a fireman's carry on a fellow male military member who weighs 225 pounds without any gear on whatsover.

J-O-K-E

I gave you a + for this post.

Worst idea for the military...ever.

It's time to bring back the draft now too.. This might change the tune of the war mongers if their little girls are on the front lines.. I think politicians kids should move to the front of the line also..

Lurch wrote:It's time to bring back the draft now too.. This might change the tune of the war mongers if their little girls are on the front lines.. I think politicians kids should move to the front of the line also..

Yeah it's easy to start wars when you don't have any skin in the game....damned politicians.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:There's no way this doesn't reduce combat effectiveness of these affected units. Women will not make the same standards that the males have to adhere to. Heck, some men don't make the standards.

The Marines tried this last summer/fall. The two women volunteers both dropped out on request.

The only way women are integrated into these units in significant numbers is to lower the standards.

More social engineering by the powers that be who will never have to "strap it on" and take it to the enemy in these conditions. Talk about hypocrisy.

Does Sgt Leigh Ann Hester ring a bell.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:There's no way this doesn't reduce combat effectiveness of these affected units. Women will not make the same standards that the males have to adhere to. Heck, some men don't make the standards.

The Marines tried this last summer/fall. The two women volunteers both dropped out on request.

The only way women are integrated into these units in significant numbers is to lower the standards.

More social engineering by the powers that be who will never have to "strap it on" and take it to the enemy in these conditions. Talk about hypocrisy.

Does Sgt Leigh Ann Hester ring a bell.

A brave soldier. BUT...she was not in the trenches fighting for months.

Sal wrote:The U.S. military is ending its policy of excluding women from combat and will open combat jobs and direct combat units to female troops, CNN has learned. Multiple officials confirm to CNN that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta will make the announcement tomorrow and notify Congress of the planned change in policy.

“We will eliminate the policy of ‘no women in units that are tasked with direct combat,’” a senior defense official says.

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/23/military-to-open-combat-jobs-to-women/

Yo mama wears combat boots.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Wow, just wow. What could possibly go wrong....?

First blacks, then gays, and now women. I can't wait to see whats next.

Well, that is the problem. This is going to be compared to blacks and gays serving and fighting in combat. But it's not the same. Not at all.

Ghandi wrote:First blacks, then gays, and now women. I can't wait to see whats next.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Hmmm...let's see....racist, homophobic, patriarchal.

Yep.....that describes you perfectly.

Nekochan wrote:

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:There's no way this doesn't reduce combat effectiveness of these affected units. Women will not make the same standards that the males have to adhere to. Heck, some men don't make the standards.

The Marines tried this last summer/fall. The two women volunteers both dropped out on request.

The only way women are integrated into these units in significant numbers is to lower the standards.

More social engineering by the powers that be who will never have to "strap it on" and take it to the enemy in these conditions. Talk about hypocrisy.

Does Sgt Leigh Ann Hester ring a bell.

A brave soldier. BUT...she was not in the trenches fighting for months.

I am not against women serving in combat situations if they are qualified for the job and can handle the situation with the same resolve as their male counterparts. I have known several women that could put a lot of men to shame physically. I am of the persuasion that the reason men are against this is because they are afraid that some woman or women will come along and embarrass the shit out of them.

W_T_M wrote:

Ghandi wrote:First blacks, then gays, and now women. I can't wait to see whats next.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Hmmm...let's see....racist, homophobic, patriarchal.

Yep.....that describes you perfectly.

If I listed what describes you, I'd get banned.

Have a nice day.

Get Some !!!!!

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:There's no way this doesn't reduce combat effectiveness of these affected units. Women will not make the same standards that the males have to adhere to. Heck, some men don't make the standards.

The Marines tried this last summer/fall. The two women volunteers both dropped out on request.

The only way women are integrated into these units in significant numbers is to lower the standards.

More social engineering by the powers that be who will never have to "strap it on" and take it to the enemy in these conditions. Talk about hypocrisy.

Does Sgt Leigh Ann Hester ring a bell.

A brave soldier. BUT...she was not in the trenches fighting for months.

I am not against women serving in combat situations if they are qualified for the job and can handle the situation with the same resolve as their male counterparts. I have known several women that could put a lot of men to shame physically. I am of the persuasion that the reason men are against this is because they are afraid that some woman or women will come along and embarrass the shit out of them.

I don't think that's the reason that so many men are against it.

Women are not the same as men. There are a lot of reasons why women do not belong in combat. Military readiness should be the number one priority. The Navy already has problems with women filling too many shore duty positions due to pregnancies. It's not fair to male sailors and it's not fair to the female sailors who aren't having babies.

Nekochan wrote:

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:There's no way this doesn't reduce combat effectiveness of these affected units. Women will not make the same standards that the males have to adhere to. Heck, some men don't make the standards.

The Marines tried this last summer/fall. The two women volunteers both dropped out on request.

The only way women are integrated into these units in significant numbers is to lower the standards.

More social engineering by the powers that be who will never have to "strap it on" and take it to the enemy in these conditions. Talk about hypocrisy.

Does Sgt Leigh Ann Hester ring a bell.

A brave soldier. BUT...she was not in the trenches fighting for months.

I am not against women serving in combat situations if they are qualified for the job and can handle the situation with the same resolve as their male counterparts. I have known several women that could put a lot of men to shame physically. I am of the persuasion that the reason men are against this is because they are afraid that some woman or women will come along and embarrass the shit out of them.

I don't think that's the reason that so many men are against it.

Women are not the same as men. There are a lot of reasons why women do not belong in combat. Military readiness should be the number one priority. The Navy already has problems with women filling too many shore duty positions due to pregnancies. It's not fair to male sailors and it's not fair to the female sailors who aren't having babies.

My previous post is my opinion and I am sticking to it.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:There's no way this doesn't reduce combat effectiveness of these affected units. Women will not make the same standards that the males have to adhere to. Heck, some men don't make the standards.

The Marines tried this last summer/fall. The two women volunteers both dropped out on request.

The only way women are integrated into these units in significant numbers is to lower the standards.

More social engineering by the powers that be who will never have to "strap it on" and take it to the enemy in these conditions. Talk about hypocrisy.

Does Sgt Leigh Ann Hester ring a bell.

A brave soldier. BUT...she was not in the trenches fighting for months.

I am not against women serving in combat situations if they are qualified for the job and can handle the situation with the same resolve as their male counterparts. I have known several women that could put a lot of men to shame physically. I am of the persuasion that the reason men are against this is because they are afraid that some woman or women will come along and embarrass the shit out of them.

I don't think that's the reason that so many men are against it.

Women are not the same as men. There are a lot of reasons why women do not belong in combat. Military readiness should be the number one priority. The Navy already has problems with women filling too many shore duty positions due to pregnancies. It's not fair to male sailors and it's not fair to the female sailors who aren't having babies.

My previous post is my opinion and I am sticking to it.

I wouldn't expect any less.

Ghandi wrote:

W_T_M wrote:

Ghandi wrote:First blacks, then gays, and now women. I can't wait to see whats next.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Hmmm...let's see....racist, homophobic, patriarchal.

Yep.....that describes you perfectly.

If I listed what describes you, I'd get banned.

Have a nice day.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

There is nothing you can accuse me of with even a semblance of truth that is worse than that list. Add in the fact you are a first class asshole troll who can't seem to curb that habit of spamming the forum with absurd, racist threads, and by God....you suck real hard.

I'm pretty convinced you get away with anything you want to post. It's been that way since I got here, and I don't see shit for evidence it will change.

Have a shitty day.

W_T_M wrote:

Ghandi wrote:

W_T_M wrote:

Ghandi wrote:First blacks, then gays, and now women. I can't wait to see whats next.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Hmmm...let's see....racist, homophobic, patriarchal.

Yep.....that describes you perfectly.

If I listed what describes you, I'd get banned.

Have a nice day.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

There is nothing you can accuse me of with even a semblance of truth that is worse than that list. Add in the fact you are a first class asshole troll who can't seem to curb that habit of spamming the forum with absurd, racist threads, and by God....you suck real hard.

I'm pretty convinced you get away with anything you want to post. It's been that way since I got here, and I don't see shit for evidence it will change.

Have a shitty day.

I'm sorry that your life is so unpleasant. Want me to do some research to see if there is some sort of program or support group for you?
I'm here to help. All you have to do is ask.
I'm praying for you and your family.

I found your parking spot...