rickyp wrote:Freeman3

This is a complex issue which is not quite as simple as Ricky is trying to make it but is something that we should be trying to make work rather than simply assume that it can't be done based on outdated gender assumptions

.
I never it said it was simple. I'm saying its settled.
Women are involved in combat, when in support roles, or in direct combat roles.
The political will exists both within the government and within the military leadership to continue because the performance of women in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan has proven that they are valuable.

Being there doesn't prove efficacy. Dying doesn't prove efficacy.

The performance of women in combat roles in other nations military confirms that and provides additional information about how integrated units function... This is not new, and its not revolutionary.
Period.

Again, you've not proven anything--other than they were present in some form or another. So what?

You're the one trying to argue that what is already being done, can't be done.

You are either illiterate or dishonest. I never said that.

I said it should not be done for sheer political reasons. And, I argued that science would tell you it's not a good idea.

You want to argue with science, but you give zero arguments that would negate the facts. Women are generally 40% weaker (upper body). Men and women are attracted. Fighting ages are mating ages. And, women have a certain . . . um . . . natural situation that affects readiness once a month. Look it up. It's true.

Tell these women, and the men they serve with, they aren't in combat units..

http://americanveteranmagazine.blogspot ... oness.html

Read the article. You may think that's full-blown combat. That only shows you've never served.

Can I say something about combat and the military? Yes, there are certain jobs that women can perform, perhaps even better than men.

Nevertheless, combat is something that fluctuates and there are needs for people to be called upon to do other than what they are (by job) normally do. This is where the carrying of large weight for a distance might be required. Your squad gets shot up, and you have to carry someone back to safety. Are you able to do it? If not, then do not be in combat zones.

The problem if you are not able to be in combat zones, then you are taking the safer place for yourself and someone else, who is qualified, must take your place. This is not fair or equal.

I stand by my earlier position. If you meet the physical, mental, emotional criteria to be in combat, then so be it. If not, then you should not be there. Please note that there is not one mention of prohibiting women from combat.

I only wish to prohibit the non-qualified from combat. It is for the safety of the squad, and the mission.

I think I agree with Brad's position. If there are neutral criteria for being in combat--and the criteria are necessary and not just something drawn up to exclude women--then let anyone who qualifies be allowed into combat. I would expect that few women would qualify now but more and more as time goes on.

It's unlikely that many women will want to serve in frontline combat roles anyway, so this is likely to be a storm in a teacup.

Sassenach wrote:It's unlikely that many women will want to serve in frontline combat roles anyway, so this is likely to be a storm in a teacup.

I disagree.

If Hillary is our next President, the pressure to "reform" the military will increase. There will be a move to establish quota-like systems for "career enhancement" reasons.