{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
12/7/2015 3:09:26 AM
108
US military to open frontline combat roles to women.
http://news.yahoo.com/pentagon-chief-order-us-military-open-combat-positions-170827820.html
They must meet the standard. If they do then they will be able.
"As long as they qualify and meet the standards, women will ... be allowed to drive tanks, fire mortars, and lead infantry soldiers into combat," Carter said.
I think if they really want to do it and are capable then I support them. The Kurds have female fighters so America should too.
What do you think?
-
3 Repliesno offence to woman but i cant see them carrying an injured soldier built like a brick house on there shoulders
-
1 ReplyI think this is a good step in the right direction.
-
1 ReplyMore power to them.
-
1 ReplyI'm cool with it
-
2 RepliesEdited by IIIEPINEPHRINE: 12/10/2015 8:46:26 PMThis is ridiculous. The military trying to be politically correct. Men are better suited for combat both physically and mentally. The end. There are lots of positions women can and do excel in, leave them to those positions. Drop the idea that everything should be perfectly equal, because it's not and should not be. So you're saying the country with a military exponentially larger than any other in existence should follow the lead of the Kurds..? Lol
-
1 ReplyLadies first
-
A 200 pound man who does 1000 push ups a day is no match for a trained woman with an assault rifle.
-
5 RepliesI don't see why people are salty about this. They clearly state "as long as they meet the standards" If someone passes the tests, why would you care if it's a man or woman on the battlefield with you?
-
6 RepliesEdited by car15: 12/8/2015 8:55:57 AMAs long as they meet the standard, I don't see the problem with it, but they [i]must[/i] meet the exact same standard as male soldiers, and that standard [i]cannot[/i] be lowered for their benefit.
-
10 RepliesThe only reason I'm against this is because say they get captured, their torture will be much worse. AKA Sexual Abuse
-
This is equality I suppose. But I know some former Marines who have said they would never go into combat with a women at his side. Theres a reason men have done the fighting throughout history. Wait for a women to get captured and r@ped by ISIS.
-
If they meet the standard then it's fine.
-
4 Replies[quote]The Kurds have female fighters so America should too.[/quote] And which one is stronger? The Kurds or the US?
-
1 ReplyThis is fantastic and will improve our combat effectiveness! If men and women had the same genetic makeup. Equality is nice but war, I'm sorry to say, couldn't give two shits whether all is equal for the sake of a progressive society. War is war. You have to have the best possible soldiers on the field. I respect women but the truth of the matter is they cannot gain as much strength as men can.
-
As many others have already said, this is a good change so long as the standards remain as they are.
-
8 RepliesI dont care as long as they meet the same standards and effectiveness as males.
-
Edited by Handsome Jack: 12/9/2015 5:07:51 AMIn all seriousness, this is good. I believe that a true patriot should be able to serve their country.
-
18 RepliesFrom the report of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces: [quote] "The average female Army recruit is 4.8 inches shorter, 31.7 pounds lighter, has 37.4 fewer pounds of muscle, and 5.7 more pounds of fat than the average male recruit. She has only 55 percent of the upper-body strength and 72 percent of the lower-body strength… An Army study of 124 men and 186 women done in 1988 found that women are more than twice as likely to suffer leg injuries and nearly five times as likely to suffer [stress] fractures as men." [/quote] [quote]"Women's aerobic capacity is significantly lower, meaning they cannot carry as much as far as fast as men, and they are more susceptible to fatigue. "In terms of physical capability, the upper five percent of women are at the level of the male median. The average 20-to-30 year-old woman has the same aerobic capacity as a 50 year-old man." [/quote] [quote]"Lt Col. William Gregor, United States Army, testified before the Commission regarding a survey he conducted at an Army ROTC Advanced Summer Camp on 623 women and 3540 men. …Evidence Gregor presented to the Commission includes: "(a) Using the standard Army Physical Fitness Test, he found that the upper quintile of women at West point achieved scores on the test equivalent to the bottom quintile of men. "(c) Only 21 women out of the initial 623 (3.4%) achieved a score equal to the male mean score of 260. "(d) On the push-up test, only seven percent of women can meet a score of 60, while 78 percent of men exceed it. "(e) Adopting a male standard of fitness at West Point would mean 70 percent of the women he studied would be separated as failures at the end of their junior year, only three percent would be eligible for the Recondo badge, and not one would receive the Army Physical Fitness badge…." [/quote] Standards will be lowered. - Der
-
2 RepliesJust throwing this out there; if they want complete equality in the military then make them sign up for the draft.
-
Talk about opening a can of worms!!!
-
Women are open to frontline combat roles but are exempt from selective service. My what, plus more.
-
2 RepliesThey should stick to jobs that don't require lots of physical strength like a pilot or something
-
11 RepliesEdited by Princess Anomaly: 12/7/2015 2:51:51 PMI think it's about fūcking time. EDIT: Fūcking hell the misogyny in this thread...
-
This is gonna end up like the Anderith Military when the Dominie Dirtch failed.
-
5 RepliesIf they want to serve their country, then let them. If they are willing to take the risks, who am I to deny them from serving in combat.
-
There's reasons why women don't go to war
