The Political Party

[guido61]

---

Ed wrote:

No, there was a ban on women fighting in the front lines, so you are wrong. They are on the ground and in harms way, so to speak, but they are most certainly not on the front lines yet.

This subject is not about recognizing women fighting on the front line because until just recently they have been banned by the pentagon from doing that.

---

You don't get it.  They DO serve on the front lines now, they just aren't CLASSIFIED as such.  So this is about recognizing those who already DO that sort of service and opening it further to others.

Women are already on the front lines—more than 150 have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan—but are in roles categorized as "combat support." This has led some servicewomen, including a group that filed suit against the military, to argue that they take on similar combat risks as their male peers but are not granted the same recognition for their service.

The change will most likely allow women to become battlefield medics and take on other dangerous combat jobs, but it's still unclear if the military's elite special operations jobs will be open to them, the Wall Street Journal reported.

Shannon McLaughlin, a U.S. Army major in the Massachusetts National Guard and a judge advocate general, shares her thoughts on the announcement. She has been in the military for 15 years. (McLaughlin is currently a plaintiff in a suit challenging the federal government's Defense of Marriage Act, which denies military benefits to her spouse because McLaughlin is married to a woman.)

Q: What do you think of the recent decision by the Pentagon to open up all combat roles to women?

A: It's a great move. I've been in for 15 years, and that includes the last 10 years that we've been in war, and I think that it will be an opportunity for us to truly reflect what's happening in the field. The reality is that women might be in noncombat or combat-support roles, but they frequently end up in combat, and we've certainly had many women injured and killed in combat. I think it's really in many ways a reflection of reality.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/women-combat-q-female-soldier-163115910.html

[Ed]

---

guido61 wrote:

---

Ed wrote:

What is the problem? The people involved with training soldiers for that role are going to get a lot of pressure now to start graduating female recruits. In order to do that, they will have to lower the requirements.

---

Don't you guys ever get tired of this stuff?  Wasn't this the line used years ago about women first being the military at ALL?  Have our fighting forces suffered as a result?  No.  Heard the same about gays.  And blacks.

For pete's sake, you'd think after being wrong about such notions 8 million times already, you people would finally get a clue and LEARN something....

---

Women are quite a bit different from gays and blacks. Women really are not strong enough.

You asked, and I told you my objection. It is the same objection that most people have concerning women on the front lines. They simply arent strong enough.

[Ed]

---

guido61 wrote:.

Women are already on the front lines

---

No, they are not.

[guido61]

---

Ed wrote:

---

---

Women are quite a bit different from gays and blacks. Women really are not strong enough.

You asked, and I told you my objection. It is the same objection that most people have concerning women on the front lines. They simply arent strong enough.

---

And that's where you get yourself in trouble, Ed.  Is with these sort of one-size-fits-all beliefs about different groups.  Sure, women aren't as 'strong' as men overall, but MANY, MANY are.  There are some women who can kick MOST men's asses.   And there are pretty puny guys in the military as well.  How "strong" do you have to be?  And most of the girls who even WANT to be in the military in the first place are pretty strong and tough to begin with.

Seems they either can complete the necessary training and get sent to the front lines, or they don't and stay behind and help out with the paperwork.  The idea they are going to start lowering requirements is simply speculation on your part.  

[guido61]

---

Ed wrote:

---

---

No, they are not.

---

You can take that up with the females getting shot up in the war, then.  What's the difference whether they are technically assigned to the front lines or not if they are ending up in combat anyway?   

[Snaporaz]

Send some busty blondes to Afghanistan.

Talibans love busty blondes.

[AxiomVanguard]

Spoiler

O ba ma has their backs...

[timrocker]

I don't like the idea much.

[redEL34]

I don`t like the idea ethier because, and I`m sure this argument has already been made, I just have an instinct to protect the finer of the sexes. I couldn`t escape that instinct.

[Invisible Hand]

The whole idea of anyone in combat seems really absurd and archaic to me.  We've basically advanced little in thousands of years if we still feel that killing each other is a good way to get what we want.  

[dblazer]

Equal rights means equal opportunity. Anyone over the age of 18 who can pass the required physical requirements to serve in combat has every right to do so, and it's not fair to us men that they have always excluded the women from carrying their fair share of the load, and condescending and patronizing toward the women who could.

[savoldi]

---

Invisible Hand wrote:

The whole idea of anyone in combat seems really absurd and archaic to me.  We've basically advanced little in thousands of years if we still feel that killing each other is a good way to get what we want.  

---

It's in our nature. For you to live, something else has to die. You can't avoid it even if munching on lettuce all day is your thing. It's still curtains for the plant. That fundamental truth spils over into other situations and the bullets are flying.