BREAKING: GI Jane to Combat

Ghandi wrote:

W_T_M wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

Ghandi wrote:

W_T_M wrote:I found your parking spot...

Must be a private joke. Anyone else get it?

He's just making fun of the handicapped....

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

Nope. I'm making fun of ghandi.

Retard.



FYI....my wife and myself are both handicap qualified, and we chose to not take advantage our disability.

Out of the two of us, only one is handicapped. You. So how is a pic of a handicapped parking spot making fun of me?
You ain't very bright, are you?

2seaoat wrote:This is one of the saddest days in our history.

This was said in the Civil War when the Union gave former black slaves guns. This was said in the Truman administration when Blacks were given equality in the military......they did not have the prerequisite skills......this was said in the 90s, when we talked about do not ask and do not tell. Been there and done that .......so many....many.....times. First, contrary to most posts which misinterpreted what the exceptions mean.......there are certain units and jobs which will remain off limits and are excepted from the new rules of equal opportunity. This means that of the 100k plus combat jobs, maybe only 60% will be available to woman.....but in those 60% we will be getting the most qualified people for the job, and not creating an artificial barrier based on race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or sex. If combat positions open up, woman will have better opportunities to advance to higher levels based on their total capabilities....not necessarily their ability to lift a certain amount of weight. I firmly believe that the standards should remain in place and anybody who cannot meet those standards and those standards are logical and necessary, should not get the job because somebody made the conditions and restrictions easier.....nope.....just fair equal opportunity to perform and prove one's capabilities.

Markle wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

Soleil wrote:1. The purpose of war is to win.

2. Soldiers in the field need be utterly dependent on the strength of the person
at their shoulder.

3. Someday, the draft WILL come back. The ACLU among others will sue to have women...including young mothers...to be called to arms equally.

This is one of the saddest days in our history.

Ideally, it would be a draft lottery with no possible deferments except for being medically disqualified.

I take it you were drafted and were jeaous of those who had deferments. There are many, many legitimate reasons for deferments. BTW, I enlisted.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

2seaoat wrote:This is one of the saddest days in our history.

This was said in the Civil War when the Union gave former black slaves guns. This was said in the Truman administration when Blacks were given equality in the military......they did not have the prerequisite skills......this was said in the 90s, when we talked about do not ask and do not tell. Been there and done that .......so many....many.....times. First, contrary to most posts which misinterpreted what the exceptions mean.......there are certain units and jobs which will remain off limits and are excepted from the new rules of equal opportunity. This means that of the 100k plus combat jobs, maybe only 60% will be available to woman.....but in those 60% we will be getting the most qualified people for the job, and not creating an artificial barrier based on race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or sex. If combat positions open up, woman will have better opportunities to advance to higher levels based on their total capabilities....not necessarily their ability to lift a certain amount of weight. I firmly believe that the standards should remain in place and anybody who cannot meet those standards and those standards are logical and necessary, should not get the job because somebody made the conditions and restrictions easier.....nope.....just fair equal opportunity to perform and prove one's capabilities.

The problem is in the Devil of the details. Physical standards WILL have to be lowered for enough women to enter these fields. The old slave or African American analogy doesn't fit the mold here.

On a forced march we once did in Okinawa from Schwab to Hansen and back (which is a marathon in distance), we actually had a male who fell out and could not hump his ruck sack. Guess what? We didn't leave him behind. A couple of Marines got ahold of him and helped him finish while wearing all their gear and the Battalion Commander, at the time was Lt Col Wesley Fox a Medal of Honor winner in Nam as an enlisted man, carried the kid's ruck along with his own. There's not a woman out there that could have helped either the downed Marine or carry his ruck along with her own. That dog just won't hunt.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

2seaoat wrote:This is one of the saddest days in our history.

This was said in the Civil War when the Union gave former black slaves guns. This was said in the Truman administration when Blacks were given equality in the military......they did not have the prerequisite skills......this was said in the 90s, when we talked about do not ask and do not tell. Been there and done that .......so many....many.....times. First, contrary to most posts which misinterpreted what the exceptions mean.......there are certain units and jobs which will remain off limits and are excepted from the new rules of equal opportunity. This means that of the 100k plus combat jobs, maybe only 60% will be available to woman.....but in those 60% we will be getting the most qualified people for the job, and not creating an artificial barrier based on race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or sex. If combat positions open up, woman will have better opportunities to advance to higher levels based on their total capabilities....not necessarily their ability to lift a certain amount of weight. I firmly believe that the standards should remain in place and anybody who cannot meet those standards and those standards are logical and necessary, should not get the job because somebody made the conditions and restrictions easier.....nope.....just fair equal opportunity to perform and prove one's capabilities.

The problem is in the Devil of the details. Physical standards WILL have to be lowered for enough women to enter these fields. The old slave or African American analogy doesn't fit the mold here.

On a forced march we once did in Okinawa from Schwab to Hansen and back (which is a marathon in distance), we actually had a male who fell out and could not hump his ruck sack. Guess what? We didn't leave him behind. A couple of Marines got ahold of him and helped him finish while wearing all their gear and the Battalion Commander, at the time was Lt Col Wesley Fox a Medal of Honor winner in Nam as an enlisted man, carried the kid's ruck along with his own. There's not a woman out there that could have helped either the downed Marine or carry his ruck along with her own. That dog just won't hunt.

cool1 wrote:I say let Jane on the front line if she can handle it--If not then move on back.

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

2seaoat wrote:This is one of the saddest days in our history.

This was said in the Civil War when the Union gave former black slaves guns. This was said in the Truman administration when Blacks were given equality in the military......they did not have the prerequisite skills......this was said in the 90s, when we talked about do not ask and do not tell. Been there and done that .......so many....many.....times. First, contrary to most posts which misinterpreted what the exceptions mean.......there are certain units and jobs which will remain off limits and are excepted from the new rules of equal opportunity. This means that of the 100k plus combat jobs, maybe only 60% will be available to woman.....but in those 60% we will be getting the most qualified people for the job, and not creating an artificial barrier based on race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or sex. If combat positions open up, woman will have better opportunities to advance to higher levels based on their total capabilities....not necessarily their ability to lift a certain amount of weight. I firmly believe that the standards should remain in place and anybody who cannot meet those standards and those standards are logical and necessary, should not get the job because somebody made the conditions and restrictions easier.....nope.....just fair equal opportunity to perform and prove one's capabilities.

The problem is in the Devil of the details. Physical standards WILL have to be lowered for enough women to enter these fields. The old slave or African American analogy doesn't fit the mold here.

On a forced march we once did in Okinawa from Schwab to Hansen and back (which is a marathon in distance), we actually had a male who fell out and could not hump his ruck sack. Guess what? We didn't leave him behind. A couple of Marines got ahold of him and helped him finish while wearing all their gear and the Battalion Commander, at the time was Lt Col Wesley Fox a Medal of Honor winner in Nam as an enlisted man, carried the kid's ruck along with his own. There's not a woman out there that could have helped either the downed Marine or carry his ruck along with her own. That dog just won't hunt.

Dude, you were in the wrong MOS.... Schwab to Hansen is about a 10 minute (or less..) trip in a CH-53.

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..

Nekochan wrote:OK, so women are being allowed combat jobs. If we now take the step that women are required to register for the draft and then we get involved in a war that ends up requiring the draft.....are women going to be drafted and forced into combat jobs against their will? Or will women be allowed to choose if they want to be in combat while men are forced to the front lines?

Sal wrote:

Nekochan wrote:OK, so women are being allowed combat jobs. If we now take the step that women are required to register for the draft and then we get involved in a war that ends up requiring the draft.....are women going to be drafted and forced into combat jobs against their will? Or will women be allowed to choose if they want to be in combat while men are forced to the front lines?

Good question.

All young women should be required to register.

Being drafted does not necessarily mean you will be sent into a frontline combat position.

The military is pretty good at determining the skills and assets an individual brings to the table, and I'm confident that they would only send the most aggressive and physically equipped females into potential combat roles.

Nekochan wrote:

Sal wrote:

Nekochan wrote:OK, so women are being allowed combat jobs. If we now take the step that women are required to register for the draft and then we get involved in a war that ends up requiring the draft.....are women going to be drafted and forced into combat jobs against their will? Or will women be allowed to choose if they want to be in combat while men are forced to the front lines?

Good question.

All young women should be required to register.

Being drafted does not necessarily mean you will be sent into a frontline combat position.

The military is pretty good at determining the skills and assets an individual brings to the table, and I'm confident that they would only send the most aggressive and physically equipped females into potential combat roles.

What if a physically equipped female does not want to be in a combat position?

Sal wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

Sal wrote:

Nekochan wrote:OK, so women are being allowed combat jobs. If we now take the step that women are required to register for the draft and then we get involved in a war that ends up requiring the draft.....are women going to be drafted and forced into combat jobs against their will? Or will women be allowed to choose if they want to be in combat while men are forced to the front lines?

Good question.

All young women should be required to register.

Being drafted does not necessarily mean you will be sent into a frontline combat position.

The military is pretty good at determining the skills and assets an individual brings to the table, and I'm confident that they would only send the most aggressive and physically equipped females into potential combat roles.

What if a physically equipped female does not want to be in a combat position?

What if a physically equipped male does not want to be in a combat position?

Nekochan wrote:

Sal wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

Sal wrote:

Nekochan wrote:OK, so women are being allowed combat jobs. If we now take the step that women are required to register for the draft and then we get involved in a war that ends up requiring the draft.....are women going to be drafted and forced into combat jobs against their will? Or will women be allowed to choose if they want to be in combat while men are forced to the front lines?

Good question.

All young women should be required to register.

Being drafted does not necessarily mean you will be sent into a frontline combat position.

The military is pretty good at determining the skills and assets an individual brings to the table, and I'm confident that they would only send the most aggressive and physically equipped females into potential combat roles.

What if a physically equipped female does not want to be in a combat position?

What if a physically equipped male does not want to be in a combat position?

Canada?

Sal wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

Sal wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

Sal wrote:

Nekochan wrote:OK, so women are being allowed combat jobs. If we now take the step that women are required to register for the draft and then we get involved in a war that ends up requiring the draft.....are women going to be drafted and forced into combat jobs against their will? Or will women be allowed to choose if they want to be in combat while men are forced to the front lines?

Good question.

All young women should be required to register.

Being drafted does not necessarily mean you will be sent into a frontline combat position.

The military is pretty good at determining the skills and assets an individual brings to the table, and I'm confident that they would only send the most aggressive and physically equipped females into potential combat roles.

What if a physically equipped female does not want to be in a combat position?

What if a physically equipped male does not want to be in a combat position?

Canada?

Then you answered your own question.

Nekochan wrote:

Sal wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

Sal wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

Sal wrote:

Nekochan wrote:OK, so women are being allowed combat jobs. If we now take the step that women are required to register for the draft and then we get involved in a war that ends up requiring the draft.....are women going to be drafted and forced into combat jobs against their will? Or will women be allowed to choose if they want to be in combat while men are forced to the front lines?

Good question.

All young women should be required to register.

Being drafted does not necessarily mean you will be sent into a frontline combat position.

The military is pretty good at determining the skills and assets an individual brings to the table, and I'm confident that they would only send the most aggressive and physically equipped females into potential combat roles.

What if a physically equipped female does not want to be in a combat position?

What if a physically equipped male does not want to be in a combat position?

Canada?

Then you answered your own question.

I answered as to the illegal way to avoid combat.
My question stands though...if women are allowed into combat and then at some point women are drafted, will an able bodied female be treated differently than an able bodied male?

Sal wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

Sal wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

Sal wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

Sal wrote:

Nekochan wrote:OK, so women are being allowed combat jobs. If we now take the step that women are required to register for the draft and then we get involved in a war that ends up requiring the draft.....are women going to be drafted and forced into combat jobs against their will? Or will women be allowed to choose if they want to be in combat while men are forced to the front lines?

Good question.

All young women should be required to register.

Being drafted does not necessarily mean you will be sent into a frontline combat position.

The military is pretty good at determining the skills and assets an individual brings to the table, and I'm confident that they would only send the most aggressive and physically equipped females into potential combat roles.

What if a physically equipped female does not want to be in a combat position?

What if a physically equipped male does not want to be in a combat position?

Canada?

Then you answered your own question.

I answered as to the illegal way to avoid combat.
My question stands though...if women are allowed into combat and then at some point women are drafted, will an able bodied female be treated differently than an able bodied male?

No.

Nekochan wrote:

Sal wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

Sal wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

Sal wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

Sal wrote:

Nekochan wrote:OK, so women are being allowed combat jobs. If we now take the step that women are required to register for the draft and then we get involved in a war that ends up requiring the draft.....are women going to be drafted and forced into combat jobs against their will? Or will women be allowed to choose if they want to be in combat while men are forced to the front lines?

Good question.

All young women should be required to register.

Being drafted does not necessarily mean you will be sent into a frontline combat position.

The military is pretty good at determining the skills and assets an individual brings to the table, and I'm confident that they would only send the most aggressive and physically equipped females into potential combat roles.

What if a physically equipped female does not want to be in a combat position?

What if a physically equipped male does not want to be in a combat position?

Canada?

Then you answered your own question.

I answered as to the illegal way to avoid combat.
My question stands though...if women are allowed into combat and then at some point women are drafted, will an able bodied female be treated differently than an able bodied male?

No.

Then what starts out as being a "choice" for women can in time become something much different.

Sal wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

Sal wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

Sal wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

Sal wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

Sal wrote:

Nekochan wrote:OK, so women are being allowed combat jobs. If we now take the step that women are required to register for the draft and then we get involved in a war that ends up requiring the draft.....are women going to be drafted and forced into combat jobs against their will? Or will women be allowed to choose if they want to be in combat while men are forced to the front lines?

Good question.

All young women should be required to register.

Being drafted does not necessarily mean you will be sent into a frontline combat position.

The military is pretty good at determining the skills and assets an individual brings to the table, and I'm confident that they would only send the most aggressive and physically equipped females into potential combat roles.

What if a physically equipped female does not want to be in a combat position?

What if a physically equipped male does not want to be in a combat position?

Canada?

Then you answered your own question.

I answered as to the illegal way to avoid combat.
My question stands though...if women are allowed into combat and then at some point women are drafted, will an able bodied female be treated differently than an able bodied male?

No.

Then what starts out as being a "choice" for women can in time become something much different.

Equality!

Nekochan wrote:Canada?

Nekochan wrote:That's a good question but then there are ways to sneak across the border.