rickyp wrote:Bbauska, i don't know or care . . .

If you had stopped there, it would be the perfect response and you could use it endlessly.

You didn't read the links at the beginning of the thread, don't know what you're talking about, and are just like a monkey hitting your keyboard randomly. Facts are for suckers and you are no sucker!

OK, unlike Rickyp, I *did* follow the links above. And while I am not going to take an actual side on this, because I have never been in combat (what's your military experience, by the way, DF?) I do have a few things I need to ask for clarification.

Firstly, define "combat". Are we speaking of ground-combat only? (Infantry, tanks, etc.) Or all forms of combat? Because women HAVE been in combat before, and are already (fighter jets go into combat, right? Ships are combat-ready, right? they're already integrated between the sexes...there are female captains of ships in fact, according to a friend of mine who's a sailor).

Second, it seems that the marines are asking for reexamination of the policy with respect to some specific roles.

Carter's decision comes nearly three years after the Pentagon first instructed the military to open all positions to qualified women, including front-line combat roles. A restriction on such roles was seen as increasingly out of place during a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan in which women were often in harm's way.

Women represented about 2 percent of U.S. casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, with some 300,000 deploying to the conflict zones.

Third, women have been in combat, technically, already, right? The nature of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is such that there aren't "front lines" as such. That seems to be an outdated term in light of today's style of warfare (not so much from us, but from the enemies we have). So...with that in mind, what's actually changing that's not already happening anyway?

JimHackerMP wrote:OK, unlike Rickyp, I *did* follow the links above. And while I am not going to take an actual side on this, because I have never been in combat (what's your military experience, by the way, DF?) I do have a few things I need to ask for clarification.

I was in the Army for three years. I was in a combat MOS, but never saw combat.

Firstly, define "combat". Are we speaking of ground-combat only? (Infantry, tanks, etc.) Or all forms of combat? Because women HAVE been in combat before, and are already (fighter jets go into combat, right? Ships are combat-ready, right? they're already integrated between the sexes...there are female captains of ships in fact, according to a friend of mine who's a sailor).

I only am concerned about ground combat. While I'm certain we will see a female pilot or sailor captured, tortured (or worse) and killed one day, I'm focused on ground combat.

Sorry, DF, I edited the post right as you responded...I added a few sentences.

Unlike RickyP, I do have standards. If you cannot meet the standards, then you cannot be in that field. Unlike RickyP, I do not care what the sex of the person. It is his issue of sexism that is rearing it's ugly head.

I am not saying do not have women in the military. I am saying that you cannot have them in a combat role if not qualified. That being said, if you cannot qualify for a non-combat role then you shouldn't be doing that. I would venture that there a few people who could not pass a basic navigation test without beaching a vessel.

To answer Danivon's request for combat roles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Exclusion_Policy

This includes assignments to the Infantry, Artillery, Special Forces and Armor.

None of this delineation matters if the standards are upheld and passed.

fate

You didn't read the links at the beginning of the thread

i read your links.
If the claims they make disqualified women from being effective in combat roles Israel and the 19 other countries that have women in combat roles would have abandoned the practice.

Somehow they've made it work, Israel for many years, but you seem to think that American women are uniquely unfit.
Because Obama./...

JimHackerMP wrote:Sorry, DF, I edited the post right as you responded...I added a few sentences.

Yes you did.

Third, women have been in combat, technically, already, right? The nature of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is such that there aren't "front lines" as such. That seems to be an outdated term in light of today's style of warfare (not so much from us, but from the enemies we have). So...with that in mind, what's actually changing that's not already happening anyway?

Women have been in combat, but not by design. This would be intentional. And, yes, it's a major change.

To hear the idiot, Ash Carter, tell it, this is not a problem. Whatever, When women are in the infantry, armor units, etc., it is going to be a major deal.

rickyp wrote:fate

You didn't read the links at the beginning of the thread

i read your links.
If the claims they make disqualified women from being effective in combat roles Israel and the 19 other countries that have women in combat roles would have abandoned the practice.

So, what did you make of the specific claims Kathleen Parker made? You're speaking in generalizations. Deal with the facts she stated.

Somehow they've made it work, Israel for many years, but you seem to think that American women are uniquely unfit.
Because Obama./...

Go ahead. Point to all the specific instances you have of female Israeli soldiers in combat. If you would, please highlight their experiences in hand-to-hand combat.

I'll look forward to reading this. Thanks.

Barbivai said: "Wherever women are present - [the IDF's] operational effectiveness rises."

Women fought in the Israelis War of Independence and have been in combat roles since the early 1990s. 33 Women of the IDF were killed in Combat in this war

I don't care about Parkers points.... They are pointless.
The very fact that 20 nations have successfully used women in combat roles for more than 20 years puts the lie to any "required standards" or arguments based on theory that defies the practical experience in 20 armies.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... emcom.html

rickyp wrote:

Barbivai said: "Wherever women are present - [the IDF's] operational effectiveness rises."

Women fought in the Israelis War of Independence and have been in combat roles since the early 1990s. 33 Women of the IDF were killed in Combat in this war

I don't care about Parkers points.... They are pointless.
The very fact that 20 nations have successfully used women in combat roles for more than 20 years puts the lie to any "required standards" or arguments based on theory that defies the practical experience in 20 armies.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... emcom.html

You are a parody of rational thought.

Parker actually had points. You have a link.

You talk about women in 20 nations for more than 20 years. And yet, you fail to show even one that would be in comparable situations to our troops. Israel, as good as its military is, is not fighting the same kind of fights we are.

Anyway, thank you for your non-contribution. Now, shut up.

rickyp wrote:

Barbivai said: "Wherever women are present - [the IDF's] operational effectiveness rises."

Women fought in the Israelis War of Independence and have been in combat roles since the early 1990s. 33 Women of the IDF were killed in Combat in this war

I don't care about Parkers points.... They are pointless.
The very fact that 20 nations have successfully used women in combat roles for more than 20 years puts the lie to any "required standards" or arguments based on theory that defies the practical experience in 20 armies.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... emcom.html

Are you saying that you don't care if someone is qualified or not? As I have said before, I want qualified people who have to pass these qualifications to do the job.

Are you really saying you do not want qualified people?

Fate

And yet, you fail to show even one that would be in comparable situations to our troops. Israel, as good as its military is, is not fighting the same kind of fights we are

.

You can't read then? Or maybe you don't retain information?
Rickyp

know its worked well in Canada for years... The first combat death was a captain in Afghanistan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nichola_Goddard

The allied troops in Afghanistan fought in the same situations as US troops. So for that matter did the IDF in Israelis war of Independence, and in anti-terror operations in the occupied territories now...
Hell, in Iraq, US women in support roles were in the same convoys as combat troops... And when the shooting started became combat troops.
Here. Educate your self.

http://taskandpurpose.com/6-women-who-f ... ghanistan/


bbauska

Are you saying that you don't care if someone is qualified or not? As I have said before, I want qualified people who have to pass these qualifications to do the job.
Are you really saying you do not want qualified people

I trust that when the military uses women in combat roles, its because they have the required skills and effectiveness
I'm saying that military professionals around the world use women in combat roles. That women have been in combat roles historically and proven to be competent.
If this has existed, then there must be qualified candidates for combat roles in the US military too.
Despite Fates unsupported blitherings about the US military being unique in the "fights" it faces. . It isn't.
And American women aren't uniquely unqualified versus women from other nations.

Women are, however, uniquely qualified for some roles in combat units that Men can't. One is dealing with women in conservative Muslim communities. These Muslim women will not talk with men. They will, and have, with women. Canadian units in Afghanistan often used their female soldiers in this way. I think some US units did too.

This is a non issue bbauska. Women are, and have been qualified. They are, and have been in combat and combat roles.
Because they have been, and continue to be effective.

rickyp wrote:Fate

And yet, you fail to show even one that would be in comparable situations to our troops. Israel, as good as its military is, is not fighting the same kind of fights we are

.

You can't read then? Or maybe you don't retain information?
Rickyp

know its worked well in Canada for years... The first combat death was a captain in Afghanistan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nichola_Goddard

The allied troops in Afghanistan fought in the same situations as US troops. So for that matter did the IDF in Israelis war of Independence, and in anti-terror operations in the occupied territories now...
Hell, in Iraq, US women in support roles were in the same convoys as combat troops... And when the shooting started became combat troops.
Here. Educate your self.

http://taskandpurpose.com/6-women-who-f ... ghanistan/
.

You're so (unintentionally) funny.

Women in combat "worked well" because . . . women died in combat.

Odd standard.

Of course, if you'd read any of the articles you dismissed, you'd see that was exactly what they predicted--higher casualties, lower survivability, etc.

It's amazing that in your ignorance you shout, "Educate your self! (sic)"

Let me ask you clearly and specifically.

Should standards be the same for both men and women soldiers?

You have failed to answer that. Yes, women are better at some jobs then men. Not refuting that.

Fate

Women in combat "worked well" because

Israel won their war of independence. With women fighting.
Afghanistan was, temporarily subdued, with women in combat.
The results on the field are why it worked well.

Would Israel and other countries be continuing the use of women in combat if they were the recipes for disaster that you and Kathleen Parker suppose?

bbauska

Should standards be the same for both men and women soldiers?

Are they the same in the other 20 countries that already have women in combat? In Israel?
If they are then I guess the answer is yes. If the answer is no then the answer is no.
You don't need to reinvent the wheel just examine the practical experience gained in the field.