Lodinews.com

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

Women in combat does not advance capabilities

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 12:00 am

The salesmen have won again. Women in combat — have we lost our minds? I know this is not fashionable, but let's get serious.

Does putting women in harm's way advance our combat capability? This is another popular social experiment that does nothing to advance our reason for being there in the first place! Combat is not some videogame or contest for social equality. This is serious business — people die, people are humiliated, people are tortured and demeaned.

The "do-gooders" have duped us again. They have shifted our focus from the goal — how do we field the most capable combat force? It is not by assuaging someone's feelings or ambition. Kill the bad guys, that should be our only purpose!

Jerry Osgood

Galt

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don’t pretend you’re someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don’t threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don’t insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the ‘Report’ link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.
  • 9 Don’t be a troll.
  • 10 Don’t reveal personal information about other commenters. You may reveal your own personal information, but we advise you not to do so.
  • 11 We reserve the right, at our discretion, to monitor, delete or choose not to post any comment. This may include removing or monitoring posts that we believe violate the spirit or letter of these rules, or that we otherwise determine at our discretion needs to be monitored, not posted, or deleted.

Welcome to the discussion.

29 comments:

  • Andrew Liebich posted at 9:07 am on Thu, Feb 7, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    [yawn]

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 9:07 am on Thu, Feb 7, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    The truth may cause you nausea but in the end it's still the truth.
    [sleeping]

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 7:09 am on Thu, Feb 7, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Even if English was my second language, your comments would still be irrelevant.

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 8:45 pm on Wed, Feb 6, 2013.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 546

    Wait... Who's regurgitating information, ad naseum?

     
  • Ed Walters posted at 7:03 pm on Wed, Feb 6, 2013.

    the old dog Posts: 519

    Mr. Dockter: Thanks for seeing my post as it was supposed to be written. It was ment to point out the difference between men and women in a combat situation. It seems most everybody took it out of content. I never ment it to be sexists, just my point of view. While women have advanced in most every endevor, getting shot, being hit and loosing a limb was not ment to be in my post and there is no glory in being injured and living the rest of your life in a wheel chair, that goes for men also. If I thought my post would have been taken that far out of contect, I would have never wrote it in the first place. I now realize people were affended, that was not the point of my post. It would seem the only way to find out if women can operate in a war zone and trade RPG`s with the enemy is to do so. For that to happen, I hope it never comes to pass.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 6:20 pm on Wed, Feb 6, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2350

    Along with physical and mental requirements, I would also add emotional to the list. How men and women respond emotionally to what they see, hear and experience are handled differently.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 2:21 pm on Wed, Feb 6, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    In 2004 women began being “attached” to "direct combat units" rather than “assigned.” I suggest you educate and inform yourself rather than regurgitate the mainstream memes of the day. Female soldiers have been in “COMBAT UNITS”, despite regulations against it and a law requiring prior notice to Congress since March of 2004.
    [sleeping]

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 11:36 am on Wed, Feb 6, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Curious, Mr. Liebich. What exactly is your point? And why are you trying to make it?

    Another conspiracy theory? What, exactly, is the conspiracy?

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 9:57 am on Wed, Feb 6, 2013.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 546

    No, she was supporting a convoy as an MP. This role was not considered a direct combat role (of which would only now be allowed), rather it was a combat-related role. Yes the distinction has been blurred, but there was and is a distinction. But the blurring of this distinction, among other factors, led to the new policy.

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 9:51 am on Wed, Feb 6, 2013.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 546

    up until now, women were allowed only in some combat-related positions. Now they will be allowed in direct combat positions. Part of the rationale is that the distinction between the two has been blurred... by the insurgent warfare being waged. That and the fact that certain promotions are unattainable without direct combat experience. If women are prohibited from the latter, than they are ineligible for the former.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 9:26 am on Wed, Feb 6, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Female soldiers have been in “COMBAT UNITS”, despite regulations against it and a law requiring prior notice to Congress since March of 2004.
    [sleeping]

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 9:08 am on Wed, Feb 6, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Whatever the outcome of the decision to allow women in combat, I can only say thank you to all men and women who have served in our military, especially those who gave the ultimate sacrifice and those who have returned home and, no doubt, whose lives have been changed forever by their experiences.

    Thank you!

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 7:27 am on Wed, Feb 6, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    just as they have been since 2004... [sleeping]

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 7:25 am on Wed, Feb 6, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999


    Did Staff Sergeant Leigh Ann Hester receive the Silver Star for her "administrative" role with the 3rd Infantry?
    [sleeping]

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 6:31 am on Wed, Feb 6, 2013.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 546

    You are correct: to enter the military there are gender normed standards. But that is not what this new policy change is about. They are not changing anything about who is accepted in the military. The change allows women to volunteer for combat roles, and for this policy change their will be gender-neutral standards. A standard of physical ability of what is expected of a soldier. Not all males will pass. Even fewer females will pass. But some will, and will be allowed to serve their country alongside their male counterparts.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 6:10 am on Wed, Feb 6, 2013.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2830

    Ed,

    Your last post has some good points. It should be clear to everyone else that women
    do not have to meet the same requirements as men in the physical part. Yet they want equality. Men in general want to protect women and keep them from harm. Now, Kevin and others here view this as sexist. It's nothing of the sort. And according to Ms. Bobin, women assigned to combat units are strictly in admistrative jobs. That being said. It seems to me Kevin should also be calling those men assigning these women to admiistraive jobs in combat units sexists too. As ridiculous as it sounds, it would be consistent to why he is calling you sexist. So I must go back to the issue of men in general wanting to protect women and keep them from harm. Doesn't sound sexist at all.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 9:47 pm on Tue, Feb 5, 2013.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2023

    The more I read about female warriors through out history the more respect I have for them. I recognize that a very small percentage might be able to meet the standards for combat. But history says women are very combat capable. I'll trust history over sexists any day.

    http://myfivebest.com/the-5-toughest-warrior-women-who-ever-lived/

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 9:24 pm on Tue, Feb 5, 2013.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2023

    I'll repeat it for the fifth or sixth time: Any women who can pass the same physical and mental requirements as men should be able to pursue ANY military role their abilities and the military needs of them.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 8:09 pm on Tue, Feb 5, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2350

    Mr. Walters - the type of comments you make such as your most recent post do very little to forward your opinion. Name-calling and other sophomoric remarks (girl scouts and cookies) only serve to advance the opposition's cause.

    I am one who believes that even those who haven't served in the military are still entitled to their opinions, even if they're based upon less than first-hand experience and best information.

    I would suggest that just before you click on the "Post Comment" button that you take a moment to decide whether or not you'd appreciate what you've written had it been by those with whom you disagree. A little dignity goes a long way.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 7:47 pm on Tue, Feb 5, 2013.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2023

    Did anyone else get that mental image of eddie, an 80+year old guy, walking around asking young 16 year old girls if they would like to serve their country?

    Can anyone else yell "STRANGER DANGER"!!!!!!!!

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 11:05 am on Tue, Feb 5, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    As is typically the case you argue emotion over fact...

    The 3rd Infantry at Fort Stewart was deployed to Iraq (including women) in January 2005.
    [sleeping]

     
  • robert maurer posted at 10:56 am on Tue, Feb 5, 2013.

    mason day Posts: 445

    I believe you are correct, Joanne,regarding a woman's roll in front line combat in the U.S. military ground fighting division,commonly known as "grunts".Those are hard jobs that demand the physical strength to not only carry their own gear,but to assist in carrying additional heavy weaponry as well as being able to carry a wounded or dead soldier away from the firefight.I also believe that if the female grunt is physically and mentally fit and her platoon leader has the confidence in her and chooses her and she wants to do it,she should have the right too. When anybody joins the service,they take a bunch of tests and are given choices of which job(s) they want to do based upon which they tested best in. An example of this was my first girlfriend who was mechanically inclined(thanks in small part to me) joined the U.S.A.F. and the last I heard a few years ago,she was a military aircraft maintenance technician stationed on our base in Japan. She may be able to bust heck out of a lot of tough guys, but her 5foot-6inch 130 lb. body cannot lift a man,nor any thing that weighs more than she does. Once again, there females who can get the job done and if the ground commander chooses a female to do it, I still don't see problem with it.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 9:24 am on Tue, Feb 5, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    In case you are wondering why no one CARES about your latest conspiracy theory, women have been assigned to combat units but in strictly administrative jobs, not actual combat.


    [sleeping]

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 7:57 am on Tue, Feb 5, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    The average fluoride/aspartame ingesting television watching zombie hasn't any idea that women have been in combat since 2004.

    Mass media mental manipulation has made this issue "controversial"

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 7:53 am on Tue, Feb 5, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Female soldiers have been in “COMBAT UNITS”, despite regulations against it and a law requiring prior notice to Congress since March of 2004.
    [sleeping]

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 7:37 am on Tue, Feb 5, 2013.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 546

    The problem is you assume the answer to your question, "Does putting women in harm's way advance our combat capability?", is no.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 6:47 am on Tue, Feb 5, 2013.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2023

    The most "capable" force is a well rounded force. One where every possible tool is available to achieve any goal needed. So the real question is why does Jerry (and others) want to LIMIT our military's abilities?

    "Combat is not some videogame or contest for social equality." This is the second time someone has said women are unable to have honorable desires to wanting to defend their country.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 6:18 am on Tue, Feb 5, 2013.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2373

    The funny thing is that, when this was announced, it didn't even occur to me that, after 10 years of women coming under almost daily fire, it would be controversial.

    I guess it just goes to show that one should never underestimate the barbarism and backwardness of the American Taliban and their parent organization, the GOP.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 4:17 am on Tue, Feb 5, 2013.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2373

    Jerry, as usual you are a day late and a dollar short.

     

Recent Comments

Posted 8 hours ago by trista aquino.

article: Letter: Evil is always present

Well thats kinda my point- I wasnt saying anything about our soldiers, or theirs for that matter- only the act of taking another humans lif…

More...

Posted 10 hours ago by Ed Walters.

article: General Mills announces ‘preliminary de…

Cronin: That smell in the air is the smell of a failing business, otherwise known as sour grapes. [sad]

More...

Posted 11 hours ago by Eric Barrow.

article: General Mills announces ‘preliminary de…

My mistake discussion is still open. Robert if it's been in the works since 82 why do you suppose Anderson had to call a meeting with Katz…

More...

Posted 11 hours ago by Eric Barrow.

article: General Mills announces ‘preliminary de…

I wonder why Walmart tried so hard to move here. Did the LNS really suspend discussion on this topic?

More...

Posted 11 hours ago by Kevin Paglia.

article: General Mills announces ‘preliminary de…

Hmmm, It is painfully obvious that some people are just always in attack mode. NO WHERE did I say General Mills closure was due to their …

More...

Video

Popular Stories

Poll

Loading…

Your News

News for the community, by the community.

Featured Events

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists