The Right Scoop
If women want to fight on the front lines, let them fight with other women. My brother always told me that if there was a woman in their special forces unit, they would all have taken special precaution to help protect her, rather than putting 100% of their efforts on the mission. This decision by Penatta will likely result in an increase in casualties on the front lines. We're crossing the line from equality into absurdity...
Should I be manning the barricades on main street USA against hostiles either foreign or domestic who would deprive me of my liberty and/or my life, and the women of the town joined me I would welcome them with open arms and be proud to stand with them, because we all know that there is nothing more cunning, stubborn, determined and just downright vicious than the female of the species defending her family and home. However, to send women into harms way in foreign lands to satisfy a political agenda is just plain UN-American (not to mention ungentlemanly).
The ultimate humiliation for Islamic fighters: To loose to a brigade of women. There could be strategy in this??
"Rrrun Akmahd, rrrun!"
MN National Guard statement that women are excited about being in combat. So I say let the front line be the gays (they also want to be in combat), 2nd line be the women that want to be in combat. Let's see who the enemies enjoy this.
Seems like a ploy (not intended to be really implemented) so that armed forces can be further weakened and demoralized.
Panetta and Obama have the emotional immaturity and egocentricity of children.
After the Bin Laden announcement, Panetta was talking to the media about what movie star would play 'me' in the movie about the military operation.
It's all about them.
I would not allow my children to serve under them. With their love of abortion and their record of casualties in Afghanistan (72% under Obama) and their support for Islamists, they have proven they do not value human life.
My youngest has decided that he's joining the Marine Corps as soon as he's 18. :-( We've tried repeatedly to talk to him and persuade him to get a couple years of tech school under his belt first. No dice. I will say he's heading in with his eyes wide open though and knowing what the potential climate could/will be like and that's admirable. He feels compelled to serve. My heart breaks a little every day now because the time is ticking away and the world is getting even nastier. I would never forbid it though - As a military mom, I've had people outright ask me why I didn't try to talk them out of it. I even had one woman tell me she threatened to break her son's leg if he enlisted so he wouldn't be able to go - KNOWING I had one down range at the time. :-(
They take good son and give you back a great son. He'll do fine. As far as the world goes, we need fine young men like him.
Gives a whole new meaning to the Buddy System! Like in **CK buddy system. Like someone else mentioned young men and women are driven primarily by hormones and in tense situations those hormones rage even more.
You know another thing that sucks about this decision? It's going to cost dollars to accomodate this. We're heading into a downsizing already with cutbacks that will hurt and now the military will have to spend on a useless provision that does nothing to improve our fighting force. Idiots - all of them. Aren't we to the point of pitchforks and tar & feathers yet?
Given the way the armed forces is made up today, I'm not surprised this decision was made by the most liberal administration in history. And for the handful of women out there who really DO want to go into combat, I just hope and pray that you will be qualified to assist the other people in your unit. Because if you are thinking about your career over the welfare of the other troops in your unit, then you should not be in that unit. And I sincerely doubt the administration has given any thought as to what would happen to these women if they were captured by the enemy, any enemy. And let's not even talk about some of the more horrific wounds a lot of these women will be sustaining as well. As usual, liberals never think about the unintended consequences of their actions, only the "feel good" desires of their very vocal supporters. They are like little kids stamping their feet and determined to have their way, regardless of the consequences. And what if the other troops in this unit suffer because of this decision? What do they DO? Who do they turn to? When you're stuck on some crappy hill in Afghanistan with people trying to kill you, I just hope EVERYBODY in the unit is able to make a contribution to save that unit, not be a burden to it.
Our son has been back from Afghanistan for about 1 1/2 years now. Now he has pain in his knees and lower back at 23 because of the weight they wore. Vest, helmet, weapon, ammo, water, pack....
In the field on patrol is where it gets worse for EVERYONE. When they have a causality, Medevac flies out the wounded, all the extra ammo, water and weapon stays with the squad. Every member now has extra to carry added to the weight they left the base with. Wounded sometimes can be cared for in place by the Corpsman. Sometimes they need to be dragged or carried to safety under fire. That persons body with their gear. WEIGHT !
Firemen had this same thing posed to them. Can a female carry another member to safety? In fires and fire fights, its life and death. Why experiment?
Being a woman, I'll offer my opinion on this. Call me old fashioned, but I think the front lines should be for the men in my country. I still believe that men have an instinct to protect, despite decades of being told that men don't. I believe that men, for the most part, are better able to handle what the front lines bring - strength, emotion, fear. Men are men for a reason. To assume that putting a bunch of women on the front line won't change the dynamics in war is to be blind to basic human nature, in my opinion. Talk about setting up the perfect hostage situation, yes? Wouldn't the enemy love to get their hands on a bunch of American women and torture them for the cameras? Far more of an impact on this country. I can handle a bow and arrow very well, and I can handle guns very well. I'm able to protect myself and others around me. However, I am not the size or strength of a man - one who has been trained for combat. That's just my humble opinion.
And your humble opinion would be exactly correct. There's an ex Woman's Army Corps. Viet Nam era Vet sitting right across from me right now, on her computer, my wife, that will confirm your every word.
I don't want women to fight on front lines. If there's ever a draft, we will have to put all women out there unless you make an exception for civilians and not draft women. But if the drive is to make women equal, you would figure they would have to be equal in the draft as well. If that happens, our bloodlines will be severed. I don't think it will ever go that far, though.
Besides, I view women as our princesses to be put on a pedestal. I want to protect our women and open car doors for them. I don't have a problem with women doing almost every job a man does, but some jobs require extreme fitness and muscle. The Angelina Jolie you see in the movies kicking everyone's as* is....just a movie.
We aren't ready to see dead American women piled up on the battlefield. This country will crack. I hope we're never ready.
"We aren't ready to see dead American women piled up on the battlefield. This country will crack. I hope we're never ready."
The American people will only see what the globalist propaganda outlets show them.
Women fallen are 2 percent of the casualties of our wars, and 12 percent of those deployed into situations with no defined front lines, insurgent tactics included roadside bombs.
Does anyone in America see those faces, those families today?
Nope. The only thing I've ever seen was a woman that was a hero for rushing in and saving a fellow soldier.....or something along those lines.
Those who say that male soldiers will be distracted by female soldiers on the battlefield, are effectively saying that male soldiers aren't rational and aren't professional enough to see past all of that.
I say give it a test run at the very least. Experimental evidence will tell us what's what.
And there is an example, I posted it yesterday. An actual 11B who had an experience in Afghanistan with female soldiers attached to his unit.
Language warning! -- From an actual 11B
"Except I have experience having females attached to my Infantry platoon, in combat. It was not a pleasant experience. They COULD NOT hump their own gear. They WOULD NOT stand fire watch, because " something could happen". Their little section leader told me " If something happens, we will stay back here and let you guys handle it". **** no, woman. You asked for it, and you got it. If something happens, you WILL BE up and firing your guns, or I'm kicking the **** out of you.
They had to stop the patrols for LOOOOOOOONG security halts. They had to build a little tee-pee out of ponchos so they could " go potty". Yeah, that was a great thing to have come over the radio " Hey, SSgt, can we stop for a potty break?".
They didn't want to hump their own weight, so they would promise **** jobs for guys who would hump their ****, and then not deliver. They would get right up on you and push their breasts up against your arm while asking for ****.
Villages that were our friends turned their backs on us, because we had women with us. The Taliban was trying to constantly set up ambushes with the specific intent of killing one, or better yet, capturing one. There was a $20,000 bounty for female killed, and a $50,000 bounty for a captured female."
Wait a second, who were these female soldiers? Were they Afghanis or something? They don't sound very professional, like the US military would have made them.
The difference is that those females clearly didn't choose to be part of the infantry unit, and they didn't have infantry training like those soldiers had.
I could have found a bunch of non-infantry males and thrown them into that infantry unit, and they'd have been just as annoying. You have to choose to be apart of it and you have to go through the training!
No, they were female soldiers attached to an infantry unit. It happens all the time. I was MI and our linguists were attached to various units throughout theater. It's part of how the military operates.
I could tell you stories about females in the military too, but I digress.
Women in the military are in enough danger without being on the front lines. The sexual assault rate in the military exceeds some muslim countries and US inner cities.
The only worse place for sexual assaults on women is the UN or NATO military units where more Islamists are assigned.
Don't be naive. Most women today haven't got scruples. Some in the military have had 6+ abortions, been used/abused by their mother's boyfriends, their fathers, brothers, boyfriends, bosses, etc.
They aren't pure fair maidens with training and muscles. They are professionals all right and for hire, IYKWIM.
Nope, I don't take orders from tyrants. I'm only willing to defend myself and my family on the "well regulated militia" level. Don't be looking down on militias now; the founders thought very highly of them.
From the commander in chief. The overall mission (whether it's iraq, afghanistan, libya, etc) is guided by the CiC, and so even though you might respect your commanding officers' individual decisions, you know that you're ultimately doing the bidding of the CiC, and therefore doing the bidding of a tyrant. You can dress it up by telling yourself that you're "fighting for your country", but really what you're doing is going places and doing things that the CiC wants done, there is a profound disconnect between what's best for your country and what's best for the re-election and/or political survival/benefit of the CiC. It's just that the micromanagement of how those things are done is handled by respectable commanding officers, and so people don't see the bigger picture.
Are you referring to Obama or a commanding officer? Because Obama may be Commander in Chief but as a soldier you take orders from real soldiers on the ground. Soldiers fight for their country but ultimately for each other. They watch each other's backs and lay down their lives for one another.
Civilians haven't got the slightest CLUE what it means to be a soldier and to put your life in someone else's hands. Trying to explain military life to a civilian is like trying to explain astrophysics to a 2 year old. it just doesn't compute. That's why civilian social experiments don't work in the military. When bullets start flying social experiments get people killed.
And I believe in militias too by the way.
The experiment is over. The experiment was to see if America would allow its military to be weakened, infiltrated and feminized by progressivism and political correctness.
We now have gays, coed combat and jihadists.
Next step - blue helmets.
That may be the motivation behind the Left wanting to do it, but my motivation is just simple curiosity to see whether all the fears concerning women in the military is justified or not. I think fear is something that we all have to overcome, or at the very least discover whether it has a rational basis for it.
I don't see any pre-determined results. All I've heard is of women joining infantry units that didn't choose to be there and didn't have infantry training, yet people expect them to act just like those infantrymen who chose to be there and who did the training.
Even if an experiment is done and it's determined that 'most' women aren't acceptable for the front lines as infantry, then there must be some who were, and so even then we could perhaps permit it, but with far more rigor than a male would be subjected to, lest we exclude those females who are fine for the role and aren't a problem.
It's not "women in the military", it's women assigned to direct combat conditions.
The military is not the place for 'social experiments'. My ex Woman's Army Corps. Viet Nam era wife, (A female R. Lee Ermey, I might add) would just love to have a talk with you. You DO know who R. Lee Ermey is, right? ;-)
The fears, and the worry, are stirred emotions - as a distraction.
If you look to this as an experiment, with something to be gleened or learned, you cannot ignore that the results will be invalid because the outcome has been pre-detrmined.
As always with the soulless who now lead us, the price will not be paid by them
We need to make f-16's wheelchair accessible also. Build a little ramp on the side and modify the controls to be tongue operated. Why shouldn't quadriplegics have a chance to be Top Gun pilots? It's just not FAIR. Wah wah wah.
Blind men (and women) should be allowed to be snipers. Their guide dogs can help them with depth perception and aiming the guns.
It's just not fair.
I stand corrected. I have been told that the point is that we have to draw a line. I see what you're saying now. Yes, we do.
That's exactly what I meant. There is simply no end to how far the libs want to move all of our "lines." before you know it, we'll be living in a real "Brave New World".
Except you are suggesting that women are inferior by comparing them to disabled people. Although there can be arguments that can be made as to why women shouldn't be on front lines, I don't think downgrading them is the way to go about it....no offense.
I don't want women fighting on front lines, however.
I took the point to be.... where do we draw the line?
e.g. We now cannot have anyone in the military asking questions about islamist loyalties in thier ranks - political correctness. That led to Major Hasan fulfilling his self proclaimed role as "Solider of Allah".
When there is no line defended, the foundation crumbles.
O.k folks here's the anti-sufferjet view without trying to be: Thirty plus years ago a study concluded that females were 100 times more susceptible to fear and stress than there male counter parts in combat or high fear jobs. Now before you ladies attempt to hammer on me. Remember this is a study by professionals that do this for a living. Having virtually nothing to do with me. Other than I have conveyed the results of said study.
Just to make a point, half of all studies are bogus. I'd imagine that most men are scared out of their britches, too, when fighting in close combat. Courage is when you are scared to death and move forward anyway.
When faced with eminent strife of a physical nature or peril for that matter. If one stands and says “ I’M NOT AFRAID” is a fool. In the 60’s and 70’s this study included females in the combat sector of South East Asia and the Middle east. In both cases virtually all females either nutted up or froze in their tracks. This is not some imaginary of contrived. Yet it is a serious study done by the department of defense from 1963 to 1979. However you will not find any results as it has been sealed. The only reason I even know of it is that some of those females were in my Unit between 1977 and 1981!
The difference is that men are born with an innate ability to push fear down in the face of conflict and focus on the mission. We were engineered by God for that purpose. Women are emotional beings and aren't wired that way. that's not to say that women aren't or can't be brave, because they are, but war is a nasty place, and it ain't a hollywood film studio.
No doubt. I was just making a point that just because there was a study on it doesn't make it fact. I agree with what you are saying though, without the use of a study.
Western civilization and Christianity brought the west out of the dark ages with strong men, strong women in marriage - strengths different, yet combined to be far greater than each on their own.
Why should anyone hammer you? The women of America allowed themselves to be seduced by the power and victimization of the "feminist movement" and then exploited for political gain. This is just one of the many prices paid.
In 1963 the news media showed women burning their bras as the women’s liberation movement took off with the publishing of "The Feminine Mystique" by Betty Friedan. Martin Luther King was jailed in April and civil unrest was being brought to the forefront. On August 28th the media brought us live coverage of the march on Washington and Dr. Kings famous "I had a dream" speech. The Cuban missile crisis found its way in to our homes and our nation was gearing up for conflict.
By September of 1963 we had lost some very influential people, Pope John XXIII, Robert Frost, and country legend Patsy Cline, to name a few. In the early hours of November 22nd we learned of the quiet passing of C.S. Lewis and hours later we were brought to our knees when President John F. Kennedy was assassinated and our nation mourned.
So you see, while long since forgotten, 1963 could very well have been, one of the most important years since our founding fathers provided us with the Constitution of the United States...
The Communist Takeover Of America – 45 Declared Goals
http://askmarion.wordpress.com/2013/01/21/the-communist-takeover-of-america-45-declared-goals/
You still acknowledge and understand my point. Personally I do not care whether hammered or not but there are presumed ladies out there that think they have a third leg.
No argument - I tend to over analyze.
It is weasel sh'ts like Panetta who serve only as a quivering parasitic masses on the backs of our military men and women.
![[POLL] Eric Holder lied to Congress while under oath; Will Congress take action against him?](http://www.therightscoop.com/wp-content/plugins/special-recent-posts/cache/MTI1MTAwbm9lcmljaG9sZGVy.jpg)
Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.