quote:

Originally posted by jrbuddha Imagine a whole platoon of PMS'ing women on the front lines.

Really, if you have that, there is no need for nuclear bombs as a deterent anymore

quote:

Originally posted by jrbuddha Imagine a whole platoon of PMS'ing women on the front lines.

weapons of mass hysteria

i think its a bollocks move. as long as the women who wish to fight are as capable in the firing line as they have to be, then of course they should be allowed to. any idea to the contrary is insulting.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I'm sure I won't be able to find the link (it might have been print, anyway), but a while back there was an article on the psychological reasons that having women front-line combat troops could be hard for the group. One reason was as listed before; rape. Not only is it horrible at first, but it also has lingering effects, such as preganacy. It's kind of like long-term pyschological warfare. Even if there was an abortion, the thought of being impregnated by the enemy in such a horrible way has lasting effects. Secondly was that it has been shown that humans, both male and female, are better able to cope with the death of a male than a female. For some reason we are wired to be more emotionally sensitive to a female's death than a male. The frontline deaths of females would be a major morale issue. Third is the "birds and bees" issue. Men and women living and fighting together are bound to have interactions that are a little "informal." These non-planotic bonds can be difficult when giving orders or in maintaining objectivity and clear judgement. I think that women should be allowed to fight front line if needed.

These are all pretty good points to consider, and I'm not sure the counterargument of the glass ceiling and limiting womens' positions in the military are particularly strong enough to counter this. I kind of see a bit of both sides on this particular part of the bill.

But I must disagree with your statement here:

quote:

However, it seems that we already have more than enough men to fight there, and there is no real reason to introduce women.

This tends to undermine all the major problems we have had with this Iraq War as a DIRECT result to not having enough troops there in the first place, i.e. securing the city, securing known strategic targets (al qa qaa, for ex.), effectively training Iraqi troops in a much more timely and efficient manner, etc. Furthermore, it also undermines the known problems our current military is undergoing with recruiting, which of course is amply demonstrated by recruiting pressures:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005...ain696991.shtml

So this doesn’t seem to be a very good time to bring up this issue of pulling back numbers on the ground, regardless of the sex, which was why I think the House GOP backed off a bit on this issue:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/19/p...artner=homepage

What really got me a bit incensed was the nearly 22,000 jobs women currently hold in the military would have been slashed. That would have been horrible discrimination by any definition, and I’m glad to see the GOP backed off on this.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 This tends to undermine all the major problems we have had with this Iraq War as a DIRECT result to not having enough troops there in the first place, i.e. securing the city, securing known strategic targets (al qa qaa, for ex.), effectively training Iraqi troops in a much more timely and efficient manner, etc. Furthermore, it also undermines the known problems our current military is undergoing with recruiting, which of course is amply demonstrated by recruiting pressures:

I would find it hard to believe that there is a surplus of women out there who would decide to enlist if they were allowed front line combat. I just do not see a large population of women waiting to join once that sort of combat is allowed. I do agree there may be some, but not nearly enough to solve recruiting problems. If it even exists I'd be amazed, but perhaps someone has some info on the amount of women who decide not to join the military on the basis that they are not allowed front line combat roles.

I nominate Chyna.

Not too be sexist... but to explore the issue:

1) What percentage of women would be able to do exactly the same physical tests as men?

2) Given they can do the same tests, why do they want to be front line troops.... is it just to prove something? If so is that a good enough reason?

3) Given they pass 1 + 2 are there enough of them to make the extra investment worthwhile in what is basicly the business of war?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I nominate Chyna.

thats a man though..........

all those feminist women should have the same rights/responsibilities as men when going to war. they want equality, don't they? when the flesh lies there in the sand, the sex doesn't really matter

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I would find it hard to believe that there is a surplus of women out there who would decide to enlist if they were allowed front line combat. I just do not see a large population of women waiting to join once that sort of combat is allowed. I do agree there may be some, but not nearly enough to solve recruiting problems. If it even exists I'd be amazed, but perhaps someone has some info on the amount of women who decide not to join the military on the basis that they are not allowed front line combat roles.

I think you're misunderstanding my point a little here. I don't disagree with what you're stating here. My point, however, was a bit tangential to the women in combat issue, and was more or less addressing the issue of being undermanned in Iraq in general.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I think you're misunderstanding my point a little here. I don't disagree with what you're stating here. My point, however, was a bit tangential to the women in combat issue, and was more or less addressing the issue of being undermanned in Iraq in general.

I understand now. I do realize that we are having a bit of a recruiting crisis. I think that my original statement should be modified to say that having front line women will not effect this problem, instead of there "already being enough men." I think such a sustained war effort, especially one that seems to have little "home" impact (ala WWI, WWII, etc.), similar to Vietman will cause difficulties in recruitment.

Being raped upon capture is a risk they must be aware of when they sign up. By joining the military, they reconize, and accept this risk.

I think women should be allowed in the frontlines, but in women-only squads. This would simply eliminate alot of unneeded complications.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Secondly was that it has been shown that humans, both male and female, are better able to cope with the death of a male than a female. For some reason we are wired to be more emotionally sensitive to a female's death than a male. The frontline deaths of females would be a major morale issue.

What you said is correct!

It is the same reason that US have been deploying female soldiers in Iraq checkpoints, it will make the suicide bomber think twice about killing a woman. (Sourc:BBC)

And back on topic, yes women should be banned for duties under the brigraider level, as reasons stated above.