|Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: Women in Combat|
Women in Combat
Posted - 1/24/2013 9:53:50 PM | show profile | flag this post
Well, what do you think?
"Declaring that it would strengthen both the military and the country, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on Thursday lifted a ban on women in combat and said that it was “the responsibility of every citizen to protect the nation.”
If they can meet the qualifications for the job,” he said, “then they should have the right to serve.”
President Barack Obama said in a statement that the decision would “be another step toward fulfilling our nation’s founding ideals of fairness and equality,” themes that he sounded three days earlier in his second inaugural address."
(Another great piece): 'She'll kick your butt': Experts say women fit to fight
While facts are: "There were about 166,000 women serving in active duty in 2011, the most recent year for which figures are available. They accounted for about 14 percent of the active armed forces. Women were most represented in the Air Force, at 19 percent, and least in the Marines, 6 percent.
There were about 36,000 women among active-duty officers, or about 17 percent.
Polls consistently show broad support for allowing women in combat roles. Support ran almost 3-to-1 in a Quinnipiac University poll conducted last February." (NBC)
I have been told by a friend of mine (very smart dude) that so far, for some reason Fox is going to come out against all this.
What do you guys think?
Posted - 1/24/2013 10:44:01 PM | show profile | flag this post
if we can have women flying f/a-18 hornets off carriers..
and we do.. a lot of them..then i'm willing to believe women can handle just about every challenge thrown at them, and that includes ground combat duty..
there should be no relaxing of the qualification standards for any billet..which may rule out some things as the SEALs and delta force..
and marine training is NOT easy..
but if they can qualify, then more power to 'em..
Posted - 1/25/2013 12:45:45 AM | show profile | flag this post
Couldn't agree more.
Women have been been shot at for years. Tammy Duckworth anyone?? This "policy" is long over due.
Posted - 1/25/2013 9:29:50 AM | show profile | flag this post
There are female firefighters and the physical standards
for that job are pretty high. If women can meet the physical standards for ground combat teams (there should be NO relaxation of standards for men for the sake of "equality") and they want to volunteer, it's their choice.
|it's just tv folks||
Posted - 1/25/2013 11:27:30 AM | show profile | flag this post
Rep Duckworth has given so much more for her/our country than a certain coward who hid in a hole in the ground in the US during Viet Nam.
Women are already in combat situations. Why shouldn't they be allowed to be considered for jobs under the combat umbrella? If they don't meet the requirements, then they don't meet the requirements. But, if they are just as good or better than their male counterparts they deserve the opportunity to serve. We deserve the best qualified people to protect and defend us.
Posted - 1/25/2013 11:33:32 AM | show profile | flag this post
It it about time for this equality. now the next step has to be making sure that married gay & lesbian military couples
receive benefits and privileges routinely given to married
heterosexual couples. This inequality is glaringly evident
after the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Right now spouses
of gay & lesbian military service members are barred from receiving medical and dental insurance and surviving spouse benefits and more. This is unfair and has to change.
Posted - 1/25/2013 11:54:53 AM | show profile | flag this post
"This is unfair and has to change"
Do you have any idea what the change would entail?
Posted - 1/25/2013 11:58:33 AM | show profile | flag this post
Posted - 1/25/2013 12:01:30 PM | show profile | flag this post
Now if only the military would do something to curb its rape problem.
Posted - 1/25/2013 12:06:04 PM | show profile | flag this post
Yes. It's in opportunity, status and pay.
Posted - 1/25/2013 1:02:18 PM | show profile | flag this post
was specifically for Village Gal. I have NO interest in what the rest of you think.
Posted - 1/25/2013 1:05:22 PM | show profile | flag this post
Once DOMA is repealed, which seems inevitable, the
military will have to deal with this. it is already a big
issue, now that military couples are married and out
of the closet. it was a front page story in last Sunday's
NYT. why would people chose careers in the military if their spouses cannot get health benefits or survivor benetits?
Posted - 1/25/2013 1:26:26 PM | show profile | flag this post
Spousal and survivor benefits
are only part of the issue. There would be a tremendous cost to effecting changes to the five military branches simultaneously. IT changes would have to be made to the accounting systems of all five branches at a cost of hundreds of thousands to...perhaps...millions, off-base housing allowances would need to be initiated for couples at a cost of...perhaps...millions. These just scratch the surface...there would be dozens of incidental costs.
All of this at a time when the government is...or should be...looking for ways to reduce federal spending and thereby reduce the deficit.
While I have no major heartburn with it (I would have preferred it be done by domestic partherships...the effect would have been identical) the nation's overextended budget must be a prime consideration.
Posted - 1/25/2013 1:31:55 PM | show profile | flag this post
It just makes sense.
You have to judge each person separately. As long as the military keeps their standards high and a person, who happens to be female, can meet those standards, then she should be allowed to do the job.
Posted - 1/25/2013 2:33:57 PM | show profile | flag this post
VG, I'm sorry to see your important concerns trivialized and diminished to the cost of software.
Posted - 1/25/2013 3:09:47 PM | show profile | flag this post
domestic partnership is definitely not the same as marriage
and does not convey the same rights. these military couples were legally married in states that have gay marriage. the
federal government and the military needs to catch up.
Posted - 1/25/2013 8:43:35 PM | show profile | flag this post
Thought it was interesting
"Servicewomen have died in all of America’s wars, but usually they were support personnel such as nurses and clerks. In Afghanistan, most women who have died were killed in combat situations...despite the military’s official prohibition on women in combat jobs.
The same has been true in Iraq, where 111 female soldiers have died, according to data compiled by icasualties.org, an independent organization that tracks military fatalities. In both wars, 60 percent of those deaths are classified by the military as due to hostile acts." (NYT)
I also found it incredibly depressing that suicide outnumbers combat deaths in Afghanistan. And speaking of depressing--for some bizarre reason Anderson Cooper interviewed well known TeaBagger whacko Allen West what he thought--
If we start letting women into combat--next thing you know we'll have women playing hockey!!
Hey it didn
t make any sense to me either, but it's just as logical as cruise being against discrimination because of all that pesky paperwork.
Posted - 1/26/2013 9:44:53 AM | show profile | flag this post
Stupid Tweet of the Week Award
Goes to Tucker Carlson:
"The Administration boasts about sending women to the front lines on the same day Democrats push the Violence Against Women Act"
Nice. A tweeter named Copperbird replied aptly,
"hey Tucker, fighting for your country is not the same as being beaten by your boyfriend or husband. Sad you don't get that"
Posted - 1/27/2013 3:40:58 AM | show profile | flag this post
VG: "Officer's lesbian spouse gets membership in Ft. Bragg spouse club"
(Story was posted this morning, Jan. 26)
Posted - 1/27/2013 8:39:05 AM | show profile | flag this post
To It's Just TV Folks:
"Rep Duckworth has given so much more for her/our country than a certain coward who hid in a hole in the ground in the US during Viet Nam."
Why would you bring up our Vice-President (one heartbeat away from C-I-C) at this time??
Posted - 1/27/2013 9:26:15 AM | show profile | flag this post
Joe Biden is 70... too old to have been drafted for Vietnam.
Posted - 1/27/2013 10:37:15 AM | show profile | flag this post
How about having...
NO soldiers in combat? We have been at war for the past 12 years, have lost both conflicts and have gone way into debt carrying out W's quest for "political capital". Let's bring them all home and cut military spending to get rid of the debt that it caused in the first place. No more needless dying by our soldiers.
Posted - 1/27/2013 12:05:03 PM | show profile | flag this post
LL, Afghanistan target in 2014. Iraq is done. The U.S. still needs and will have a combat-ready military to handle the world's loose cannons, so to speak, like North Korea. That's what lifting the ban on women in front-line combat roles is about.
Posted - 1/27/2013 6:10:09 PM | show profile | flag this post
To the Village idiot, nice try.
From a simple search on Wikipedia, " He received his Juris Doctor in 1968, graduating 76th of 85 in his class. He was admitted to the Delaware Bar in 1969.
Biden received five student draft deferments during this period, with the first coming in late 1963 and the last in early 1968, at the peak of the Vietnam War. In April 1968, he was reclassified by the Selective Service System as not available for service due to having had asthma as a teenager."
That despite playing college football.
Posted - 1/27/2013 7:01:40 PM | show profile | flag this post
he was definitely eligible for the draft..
he's one year older than i am.. and i definitely WOULD have sweated the draft, if i had had to worry about it..
fortunately, i was already in the naval reserve..
but yeah.. he was draft-eligible, age-wise..