Saturday, January 15, 2011

We Knew This Was Coming...

Yup. A groupthink of Leftoids-with-epaulets has finally excreted this.

Women should finally be allowed to serve fully in combat, a military advisory panel said Friday in a report seeking to dismantle the last major area of discrimination in the armed forces.

...The newest move is being recommended by the Military Leadership Diversity Commission, established by Congress two years ago.

Frankly, I think that if women are going to serve in combat, the Harpies should be the only ones to do so. They would be effective, even if they only emitted their war-cries.

E.G., Pelosi. HRC. Barb Lawton. Mikulski.

You get the idea.

HT: Zippers

17 comments:

neomom said...

Nope. Do not like.

Much as nobody in the PC crowd wants to admit, men and women are different. Women should not be on the ground in combat.

Support (including air - like Cobras) absolutely. With a rifle busting down doors. Nope.

John Foust said...

People are different. Where's the freedom?

Some people like to enforce their old patriarchal notions on other people.

John Foust said...

Or make anti-woman jokes.

Anonymous said...

This is the danger of having so many national leaders who have never served in a combat unit.

Combat Arms units have a level of cohesiveness that is simply unknown in the civilian world. Unlike most other military units, these units are literally a "band of brothers" who have a singular mindset and purpose that can easily be dented when something comes between them or something isolates individuals in the group.

The live, work and sleep together. They train to the point that communication is not even vocal anymore. A small hand signal or even body posture can tell the guys behind you that you see danger, they are warriors.

How dare the government destroy what has taken 40 years to perfect?

David

Anonymous said...

David, get your head out of your [blank].

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leigh_Ann_Hesterwhere


And, historically, women have served as warriors in combat. Get a clue!

www.lothene.org/others/women.html


If an American female wants to serve her country with honor and distinction in direct combat, and fully understands the risks involved, including potentially being brutally raped, and meets the requisite criteria--ONE STANDARD FOR ALL PROSPECTIVE GROUND TROOPS--why the hell not!

Dad29 said...

Yah, and if an American female wants to play NFL football, why not?

I mean, there's NO difference, right?

Sure.

Anonymous said...

When it comes to PATRIOTISM, there is NO difference between men and women.

The same arguments were made to exclude minorities from serving on the front lines. Seems to me things turned out fine.

And we're not talking about being a pro quarterback, we're talking about combat. You know, "buy more ammo" stuff!

Read what I said at 5:39 p.m. Seems like you have a comprehension issue.

Dad29 said...

No. I don't have a comprehension issue.

You have a serious deficiency of rationality if you "think" that armed frontline combat is any LESS demanding than NFL q-backing.

Dope.

Anonymous said...

Anon, You obviously have not served for a second if you believe ANY individual means anything in a combat unit. Nobody is so friggin important that their wishes, dreams, or self esteem can be placed above the unit. Only a truly arrogant, obtuse, civilian puke would even, for so much as a split fraction of a second actually believe we should kill American servicemen to prove some PC bullcrap point.

David

Anonymous said...

Dad29, David--Did you guys care to even bother reading about Leigh Ann Hesterware? Did she put her fellow compatriots in arms in danger? No, you'd rather bloviate and call me names. So much for following the "good book".

Besides, I thought "war porn" got you off, Dad29.

"It really doesn't have anything to do with being a female," she said. "It's about the duties I performed that day as a soldier."

One more time...no special treatment is expected. If women want to fight with men, they will have to meet the same standards and be able to accomplish the same physical tasks. If they can't cut it, they're out.

The same goes for NFL QB prospects.

If female soldiers meet the criteria of any given male soldier, then there is no reason, besides typical male chauvinism, why they cannot be given the opportunity to serve on the front lines.

Dad29 said...

Granted that there are exceptional times and places--Ruth comes to mind, as does the woman who joined the artillery during the Revolution (subbing for her dead husband)...

Your baseless insulting "chauvinism" claim demonstrates your inability to think deeper than a millimeter or so.

Bite me.

Anonymous said...

Resorting to insults to attack someone's position rooted in fact. Alinsky would be proud of you.


"Granted that there are exceptional times and places..."

Since the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, 132 American female soldiers being KIA and 721 more wounded. Hundreds more are targeted everyday. One could reasonably argue that these wars are unconventional due to the lack of distinction between combat and non-combat roles on the front lines. Another way of saying it? The front lines are fluid.

Furthermore, women in the Israeli Army are afforded full combat roles, so there is precedence.
Female instructors even train male soldiers in certain roles, particularly tank crews.


Yep, sounds like "exceptional cases"...and a case of inflated male egos and the compulsion to be "protective".

Dad29 said...

Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass what Israel does with its armed forces, any more than that AlQuaeda uses women as homicide bombers.

Roadside bombs are indiscriminate, doh.

And are you trying to say that KIA women are a 'justification' for putting women in direct combat?

Anonymous said...

Women are able to make up their own minds. If they make the grade physically, and they grasp the consequences like being being tortured and gang-raped if captured in combat, it's a CONSCIOUS CHOICE they made.

But men shudder to think--as well as they should, mind you--about such unspeakable acts being done to women, and therefore men work to "safeguard" women because they seemingly know what's "best" for them.

To those females who seek the opportunity to serve in direct combat alongside males, it's insulting to their hard-nosed mentality.


"And are you trying to say that KIA women are a 'justification' for putting women in direct combat?"

Stick to the point. Women who meet the same standards of men and are fully aware of and accept what may happen to them ought to be given the opportunity to serve on the front lines in combat missions.

White servicemen used similar arguments to justify the exclusion of minorities from direct combat duties. I see that Truman's executive order from 1948 worked out just fine in the end.

Dad29 said...

Nothing like supporting your argument with a false equivalence.

Being black is a difference of accident; being female is NOT an 'accidental' difference from being male. It is a difference based on function.

Try again.

Anonymous said...

False equivalence? In BOTH cases, some white males in the military felt (and feel) that blacks were and women are ill-equipped mentally to be on the front lines. That, somehow morale would be compromised due to their "peculiar" differences. We are talking about a SHARED concern on the part of some men toward females now and minorities then.

In addition, you want to talk about function? Great. There is NO difference between a man and a woman if they are able to meet the criteria specified by the military for front line combat roles other than their gender.

If a woman, just like a man, is able to prove during training to shoulder the load, hit the target, and direct traffic in the heat of battle, she is qualified for the position.

Men, just like women, can "freeze" when the real bullets are flying and snap decisions must be made during a firefight. I am confident that the person leading the charge, whether male or female, has had the requisite ARMY STRONG training to get the job done.

Unfortunately, we all know which gender has made the "rules" and who has provided the "excuses".


You keep moving away from the point, Dad29. It's still right there.

John Foust said...

(Insert "Natural Law" or "God Says" excuse here.)