Brown: Allow Women Into Combat Units | Page 3 | MassCops

Brown: Allow Women Into Combat Units

Discussion in 'Military News' started by kwflatbed, Feb 22, 2012.

  1. Delta784

    Delta784 Guest

    It wouldn't be her "fault", but the potential problem is very easily rectified by not having females there in the first place.

    For those of us who have actually served in a combat theater, it most certainly is a compelling argument, and it's also reality.

    Let it be known that you were the one to try to go down that road, not I.

    LG, for someone who lambastes the media whenever they take up the liberal cause du jour, I'm honestly suprrised that you're falling for this social engineering madness.

    I don't know who told you, or where you developed the notion, that females are equal to males in physical strength, stature, and endurance. The inconvenient truth is that in general, men are stronger, and can run faster & longer than women. That's such a basic fact that it's not even worth arguing about, but look no further than the diminished PT standards for females in both the military and for entrance to the police academy, and the different categories for amateur and professional sports. Why do you suppose there are no women in the NHL, NFL, MLB, or NBA? How many men finish the Boston Marathon before the first woman crosses the finish line?

    I'll ask again, for what, the 5th time?

    What benefit does it bring the United States Armed Forces to allow females in front line combat units?

    Since you can't/won't answer, I'll answer my own question.

    Absolutely nothing.....there are positively no potential benefits whatsoever, other than appeasing the "I am woman, hear me roar" crowd.

    What problems does it bring? The morale killer of fraternization, the hassle of separate living accommodations, and decreased combat efficiency due to having soldiers that are not as physically capable as everyone else.

    Is all that hassle and danger really worth it in order to appease a miniscule minority?

    The United States Armed Forces are the finest in the world....there is absolutely no need or benefit to change it through liberal social engineering.
     
  2. mpd61

    mpd61 Retired Fed, Active Special

    Submarines is the latest laboratory...wait for the results

    BTW? If the shit hits the fan, isn't it mental toughness/will to fight that really counts?
    Couple that with effective equipment and I'm not that certain sex plays into it so much.
    Does a 5.56mm round terminating in a target become less effective when being fired by a female? For that matter what 25 mile forced hike over hours similates the actual tracers coming in and adrenaline rush of CBQ???
    Just trying to be objective.
     
    LGriffin likes this.
  3. Delta784

    Delta784 Guest

    Okay, let's hand an M-240 and a few hundred rounds of belted ammunition to a 5'2" 100lb female, and then see how far her mental toughness will carry her on a dismounted patrol.
     
  4. CJIS

    CJIS MassCops Member

    I think we need to worry more about what Obama has and is doing to our military than what sex serves where in it.
     
    LGriffin likes this.
  5. Delta784

    Delta784 Guest

    This thread is about females serving in combat units, not Obama.
     
  6. CJIS

    CJIS MassCops Member

    I know that but I am more concerned what will become of our military with him at the helm. Where woman serve in it is sort of on the back burner in my mind. If the military budget becomes so decimated and the military itself becomes so demoralized because of it and his policies I think that is a much greater issue that should be taken care of first.
     
  7. Delta784

    Delta784 Guest

    Then go start a thread about that subject, this one is about females in combat units. If you don't like the subject, then don't read it.
     
  8. CJIS

    CJIS MassCops Member

    Never said I did not like the thread. I was just trying to point out that with what Obama wants to do with our military that the issue of where females are to serve may become a mute point as he is decimating things to the point were there will be less and less open front line positions for them to serve in.

    Another words it won't matter if you allow woman to serve in the front lines if you have nowhere to place them. The lines are becoming smaller and less placements can be made to put them. I see us going to a purely defensive model in the future where there is a lot more reliance on Drones and artificial tech.
     
  9. kwflatbed

    kwflatbed MassCops Angel Staff Member

    One question cjis are you a combat veteran ?????
     
  10. CJIS

    CJIS MassCops Member

    No. Did I ever say I was? I can appreciate where those that were are coming from as to why they would not want Females serving in front lines because of things they saw.

    I was not trying to question that belief. What I was trying to question is in the near future what will the front lines be?

    Will the front lines be close to a battle but in a bunker\building in a defensive position guiding drones or what not or will it be ground forces on the ground going door too door in an urban area taking out the enemy?

    If it becomes the first then I do not think It will mater much were woman will be placed as the role of the front line will be completly different than it traditionally has been.

    In Afghinistan we are seeing ever increased usage of unmanned vehicles and less use of ground combat forces fanning out in defined front lines than we have used in the past with he exception of special ops.

    Moreover the way Obama administration and liberals policy's on warfare is now, seems to be the beginning of the military becoming a more Defensive role with much less reliance on ground intervention warfare and focusing most offensive capability on technology. They have already scraped several Combat brigades, Slashed large numbers of NCOs from the budget cut funding to the F22 and downsized all other buildups of equipment and units.

    The writing is on the wall. Not now and probably not for another 10 years or so but mark my words if we continue to go this way we will not be the military might we once were and the front lines will be very obscure.
     
  11. kwflatbed

    kwflatbed MassCops Angel Staff Member

    There will always be troops on the ground, unless you have ever been in the military
    or served under combat conditions your opinion is worth 0.
    You have never been there or done that on the front lines or in the far back behind
    a desk.
    The members of this board that have served have more knowledge in their little finger
    than you will ever aquire reading OBAMA'S bullshit or the bias news reporters that you
    post,the only thing that will be obscure is your opinion and OBAMA.
     
  12. CJIS

    CJIS MassCops Member

    I never said there would never be troops on the ground. But to what extent and how many in the future?

    BTW are you trying to say I support Obama or believe the BS he spouts or articles that make him look good? Because I have made it quite clear I do not and you are crazy to think that I do.
     
  13. mpd61

    mpd61 Retired Fed, Active Special

    Oh shit Harry!
     
  14. kwflatbed

    kwflatbed MassCops Angel Staff Member

    The same thing about front line troops was said in Korea,Nam, and now what is going on
    in the middle east, the next war will be different,the only thing that has changed are the
    weapons and the faces of the people using them.
    There always has been front line action and there always will be.
    No matter how much electronics,drones,etc. that there are it is only there to help the front
    line troops.
    The only thing we need is a CIC that has the balls to use what we have and put a STOP
    to the shit in the middle east.
    And to put this thread back on track women are only a distraction on the front line combat,
    there may be many that fit the bill and qualified but they will always distract the men it's
    human nature.
     
    Delta784 likes this.
  15. LGriffin

    LGriffin Always Watching

     
  16. Delta784

    Delta784 Guest

    LG, don't try to turn this into a "Delta has a low opinion of women" thread, that's a cheap ploy to divert the attention away from your failing argument. It's beneath you.

    I work with a female officer who got her job back during my union presidency after everyone told her it was impossible. Why would I do that if I have a low opinion of women?

    You can't seem to understand that it's a simple matter of genetics and physics; the overwhelming majority of females are not going to be able to carry the amount of military gear as males. Here's an example for you....traditionally, the position of machine-gunner on a fire team is given to the lowest ranking member, because it sucks to have to hump it around. There is no possible way that a 5-2 100lb (and I had no idea what your size is, I pulled those stats out of thin air) female can hump a 28-pound M-240 machine gun, the belted ammunition, plus all the other gear required for a military mission, for very long, so that means a senior male soldier will have to take it.

    Does that sound like "equality" to you?

    I could go on and on, but you've dug your heels in to the point that you're now lashing out with cheap shots and insults as your arguments crumble under the weight of reality and actual military experience, so there's no sense in continuing this. This is my last debate with you on the matter, but feel free to have the last word if it makes you feel better.
     
    JamnJim18 likes this.
  17. LGriffin

    LGriffin Always Watching

    Go back and look at some of the statements you've made here. They don't look good.
     
  18. JamnJim18

    JamnJim18 Guest

    Can't we all just get along? :cool:

    [​IMG]
     
  19. Delta784

    Delta784 Guest

    Because they're devastating to your argument?

    Sorry about that.
     
    JamnJim18 likes this.
  20. niteowl1970

    niteowl1970 Moderator Staff Member

    There are people with very strong opinions on both sides of this argument so since I've never served and my opinion means nothing to certain members I'll comment anyway.

    If this change were to happen I'm assuming that the females wanting to go into an 11 series MOS would have to pass the same PT standards as their male counterparts. It seems logical to have every infantryman be held to the same standard. This is just a minor issue in the process IMO. The real clusterfuck will begin when these mixed units get deployed. I can see lots of drama resulting from a coed infantry platoon.
     
    Delta784 and JamnJim18 like this.
  21. Delta784

    Delta784 Guest

    Passing PT standards is the least of the concerns about this....the social engineers will always be able to field a few highly athletic females who could pass the male standards for a "But, look!!" press release. The real problems are fraternization, morale, and dramatically altering the dynamic of military units for no other reason than to appease a tiny minority.

    I'll ask again....I think this is the 6th time.....what possible benefit would it be for the US Armed Forces to allow females into front-line combat units?

    Can ANYONE answer this question, except for my own answer, which is "Absolutely nothing"?
     
  22. LGriffin

    LGriffin Always Watching

    You sound like a Springer contestant asking the same answered question over and over.
    I've answered but I don't think anyone else in opposition would dare to challenge the great masscops messiah.
    Have a nice day!



     
  23. JamnJim18

    JamnJim18 Guest

    [​IMG]
     
  24. justanotherparatrooper

    justanotherparatrooper Pissin' in liberals cheerio's for 40 years :) Staff Member

  25. mpd61

    mpd61 Retired Fed, Active Special

    [quote="Delta784, post: 662159, member: 1545

    You can't seem to understand that it's a simple matter of genetics and physics; Here's an example for you....traditionally, the position of machine-gunner on a fire team is given to the lowest ranking member, because it sucks to have to hump it around. There is no possible way that a 5-4 135lb soldier can hump a 28-pound M-240 machine gun, the belted ammunition, plus all the other gear required for a military mission, for very long, so that means a larger soldier will have to take it.

    Does that sound like "equality" to you?
    [/quote]

    FIFY!!!!!!!!!!
     

Share This Page