cbfalcon 825 Posted January 24, 2013 Chicks shooting stuff Women in all branches of the military soon will have unprecedented opportunities to serve on the front lines of the nation's wars. Leon Panetta, in one of his last acts as President Obama's defense secretary, is preparing to announce the policy change Thursday, which would open hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs after more than a decade at war, the Pentagon confirmed. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/23/panetta-opens-combat-roles-to-women/#ixzz2Iu890TKq Horrible horrible horrible idea. I'm all for biatches rights and whatnot, but if serving on the front lines with a chick, there is zero doubt I'd be affected. If it was a cute chick, I would want to protect her life and make sure she was never captured. If it were an ugly chick, I would hate her. So really it's a no win situation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lackman 0 Posted January 24, 2013 First is was the 'mos. Now it's the dames. Two groups of people that can't fight. We'll be seeing out troops in combat situations trying to sissy slap the enemy while receiving a bayonet in the guts. Ask the cops and firemen how useless the broads are on patrol and in confrontational situations. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drobeski 3,061 Posted January 24, 2013 I thought they repealed that a couple if years ago Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TimmySmith 2,782 Posted January 24, 2013 Meh, now that Obama's using drones, is there really going to be much front line work? Plus there is no way a woman could pass Ranger or Seal School so special forces are out. Another meatless bone. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackARoot 2 Posted January 24, 2013 Chicks shooting stuff Horrible horrible horrible idea. I'm all for biatches rights and whatnot, but if serving on the front lines with a chick, there is zero doubt I'd be affected. If it was a cute chick, I would want to protect her life and make sure she was never captured. If it were an ugly chick, I would hate her. So really it's a no win situation. There's no front-line in an insurgency, so they're already serving in combat, being fired upon, etc. This just allows them to earn recognition for it and be promoted. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edjr 6,136 Posted January 24, 2013 Don't ask don't smell Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GobbleDog 907 Posted January 24, 2013 Bottom line - does it make the military better? Same goes for gays in the military. To hell with people's rights or what's fair. You can't end a war saying "gee we lost, but at least we were fair." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Drizzay 667 Posted January 24, 2013 I will leave it up to a commanding officer to decide if a certain woman can cut it on the front lines or not. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edjr 6,136 Posted January 24, 2013 Bottom line - does it make the military better? Same goes for gays in the military. To hell with people's rights or what's fair. You can't end a war saying "gee we lost, but at least we were fair." How about no more wars that we don't start? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GobbleDog 907 Posted January 24, 2013 How about no more wars that we don't start? I assume you're referring to Afghanistan.?. I can't understand why we're still there. How dare the government talk about being money strapped and raising taxes while engaged in the longest war in US history. A war that could go on for another 20 years with no chance of ever winning. I must say, there has to be some benefit to it that I don't understand because neither party talked about ending it in the past 2 Presidential elections. I'm no fan of Obama, but I'm glad he's finally set a time-line to end the damn thing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edjr 6,136 Posted January 24, 2013 I assume you're referring to Afghanistan.?. I can't understand why we're still there. How dare the government talk about being money strapped and raising taxes while engaged in the longest war in US history. A war that could go on for another 20 years with no chance of ever winning. I must say, there has to be some benefit to it that I don't understand because neither party talked about ending it in the past 2 Presidential elections. I'm no fan of Obama, but I'm glad he's finally set a time-line to end the damn thing. Vietnam Iraq There hasn't been many good wars the USA started over the last 40 years. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GobbleDog 907 Posted January 24, 2013 Vietnam Iraq There hasn't been many good wars the USA started over the last 40 years. Vietnam - You can thank JFK for that (most over-rated president in history) Iraq... I agreed with and still do. The war was really intended to restore American confidence following 9/11 both at home and abroad - Flex military muscle and "shock and awe". Nobody wants to admit that, but it's the truth. Iraq was the perfect turkey. They were in violation of several serious UN agreements, they were a brutal regime, they were Muslims, and Americans would support such a war having already easily beat them in Kuwait. The WMD never should have been used as a reason, because there was no real proof they ever had any. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KSB2424 3,096 Posted January 24, 2013 As long as they don't get special treatment or lower standards then I don't care. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Blue 06 195 Posted January 24, 2013 As long as they don't get special treatment or lower standards then I don't care. This. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RLLD 3,793 Posted January 24, 2013 I never had much of a problem with females. If a female can save my life, protect me from harm while in combat, then that is who i want there....the best person. Now, that being said, i assiduously stayed away from them during my time. If I had to confer with a female I always made sure it transpired in the presence of another individual. They can ruin you with any accusation and they know it, and they use it.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Recliner Pilot 61 Posted January 24, 2013 The WMD never should have been used as a reason, because there was no real proof they ever had any. There are some dead Kurds who would disagree with you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hoytdwow 202 Posted January 24, 2013 Terrible. We all know women can't serve in this capacity because every month they get infections. [/Gingrich] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BunnysBastatrds 2,054 Posted January 24, 2013 Terrible. We all know women can't serve in this capacity because every month they get infections. [/Gingrich] Issue them camouflage tampons and all is well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Recliner Pilot 61 Posted January 24, 2013 The WMD never should have been used as a reason, because there was no real proof they ever had any. "What difference, at this point, does it make"?---Hitlery Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cbfalcon 825 Posted January 24, 2013 Jokes aside...Obviously I am cool with woman serving in theory. But in reality, if I were serving on the front lines with a woman, I'd likely feel more protective over her than I would a man. The idea of a woman being captured for example, I'd worry about what would be done to her in such a way that it would probably affect my choices. Whether that means putting myself in unnecessary danger, or someone else. Maybe it's my own personal problem, but it's the reality I think. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kutulu 1,595 Posted January 24, 2013 Back to the Front Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phurfur 70 Posted January 24, 2013 but they don't have to register for the draft? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
naomi 351 Posted January 24, 2013 ^That's the next expected policy development. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BunnysBastatrds 2,054 Posted January 24, 2013 Back to the Front You will doosh, when I say, you must doosh, back to the front. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryskids 5,842 Posted January 24, 2013 As long as they don't get special treatment or lower standards then I don't care. I philosophically agree, but I've never served, so it is hard to have a strong opinion on it. I'd be a little concerned about the cost and logistics of handling... women issues. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bruce Benedict 0 Posted January 24, 2013 ...unprecedented opportunities... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GobbleDog 907 Posted January 24, 2013 There are some dead Kurds who would disagree with you. True, they apparently had some chemical weapons in late 80's. But after the invasion, none of the various weapons Collin Powell described to the UN were discovered. It made the US appear as liars and barbarians. Powell is a POS knowing damn well his "proof" was based on the flimsiest of evidence (mostly tortured prisoners). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Recliner Pilot 61 Posted January 24, 2013 True, they apparently had some chemical weapons in late 80's. But after the invasion, none of the various weapons Collin Powell described to the UN were discovered. It made the US appear as liars and barbarians. Powell is a POS knowing damn well his "proof" was based on the flimsiest of evidence (mostly tortured prisoners). What difference, at this point, does it make? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Franknbeans 46 Posted January 24, 2013 If it bleeds, it leads Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GobbleDog 907 Posted January 24, 2013 What difference, at this point, does it make? It lowered the world's opinion of us. That makes a difference when looking for cooperation in various worldly matters. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SUXBNME 1,413 Posted January 24, 2013 There are some dead Kurds who would disagree with you. That's my line, asswhole. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shovelheadt 68 Posted January 24, 2013 As long as they don't get special treatment or lower standards then I don't care. They already do. Every last aspect of their physical conditioning requirements are lower than the men's. Timed runs, pull ups, sit ups, etc...all are less then the men. Not sure how that will affect combat duty, but it's fact that women are weaker physically. I want to see one of them try out for SEAL training! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KSB2424 3,096 Posted January 24, 2013 They already do. Every last aspect of their physical conditioning requirements are lower than the men's. Timed runs, pull ups, sit ups, etc...all are less then the men. Not sure how that will affect combat duty, but it's fact that women are weaker physically. I want to see one of them try out for SEAL training! Well, then I have a problem with that. Having a weaker soldier by the side of another soldier is not good policy. It's not fair to not only the other soldiers but to the woman either. You're putting both in a position more likely to fail. Call me crazy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BunnysBastatrds 2,054 Posted January 24, 2013 . I want to see one of them try out for SEAL training! The ones that do will not look like Demi Moore. They'll look more like muff diver movers who carry their wallet with a chain. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 3,813 Posted January 24, 2013 I'm okay with it, especially since women were already essentially serving in some front line positions. Might as well make it official. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MDC 6,462 Posted January 24, 2013 As long as they don't get special treatment or lower standards then I don't care. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phurfur 70 Posted January 24, 2013 Well, then I have a problem with that. Having a weaker soldier by the side of another soldier is not good policy. It's not fair to not only the other soldiers but to the woman either. You're putting both in a position more likely to fail. Call me crazy. Police Officers and Fire Fighters face this every day, what is the difference? Why is one acceptable? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sheadtoo 1 Posted January 25, 2013 Better make rubbers a standard issue. Or expect a HUUUUUUUUUUGE up swing in combat pregnancies. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Savage Beast 1 Posted January 25, 2013 Ever since I was a child, the first thing I always did when a fight was on was look for a girl or the most feminine guy i could find to help me fight my enemy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shovelheadt 68 Posted January 25, 2013 Police Officers and Fire Fighters face this every day, what is the difference? Why is one acceptable? After watching countless videos, nightly news reports and cop shows over the years, I have yet to see a female take down a runner single handed or carry someone down a flight of stairs from a burning building. Fact. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites