Developing: Pakistani Plane Escorted by UK Fighter Jets — 2 Men Arrested

Doc Thompson’s 24-hour radio marathon, ‘#24forok,’ continues until 9 am ET — Listen Live!

Government

Should Women Serve In Combat? Blaze Poll Results

Jan. 31, 2013 11:23am Mike Opelka

Note: Tonight on TheBlaze TV’s Glenn Beck Program, (5pm ET or on-demand) “Women In Combat”

–

Earlier this week, TheBlaze conducted a poll asking how you felt about the Defense Department’s recent decision to allow women in the front lines of combat. The poll questions also included some discussion of requiring women to register with the Selective Service System.

The poll had more than 150,000 responses to 40 questions on the two topics. Participants were:

65% male and 35% female
Of those required to register for the draft (men), 65% did so within one month of their 18th birthday – as required by law.

The results showed a broad range of opinions.

The basic question was a simple one: Should women be allowed to fight on the front lines?

Women In Combat And Registering For The Draft

81% of people answering our poll said “no” to that question.

Despite the majority opinion being against women in combat, the U.S. military is going to allow women to fight on the front lines. So, we asked about standards for qualifying to fight in battle. On that issue, 97% of our respondents believe that men and women should have to meet the same standards for combat certification.

Women In Combat And Registering For The Draft

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough seems to agree with our readers that standards need to be the same for both men and women, or our military is weakened. The “Morning Joe” host vehemently stated his position on making certain that no standards are lowered:

“I’ll be damned. If we find out that the Pentagon is lowering standards for politically-correct reasons, then you know what? Then the blood of dead Americans in future battles will be on their hands.”

While an overwhelming majority of TheBlaze audience wants the same standards for men and women in combat, 62% said that they would not endorse their own daughter’s decision to enlist for combat, even if that child passed the same tests as a man.

Women In Combat And Registering For The Draft
For combat positions that don’t require strength, more than 2/3rds (67%) approve of women in those roles.

Women In Combat And Registering For The Draft

The strong majority of people who answered our questions also seemed to think bringing women into combat roles would diminish the U.S. military.

85% believe that the military will be weakened by women in combat.

Women In Combat And Registering For The Draft

A full 70% expressed their concern that women in combat would threaten the global #1 standing of the U.S. military.

Women In Combat And Registering For The Draft

We moved from the topic of women in combat to a question about registering for the draft.

71% agreed that if women are allowed in combat, they should also be required (like men) to register with Selective Service.

Women In Combat And Registering For The Draft

Without the combat requirement, women get a little more of a break. Speaking in general terms, should women have to register? Only 45% said “yes.”

Women In Combat And Registering For The Draft

The overall feeling about any 18-year-old being forced to register for the draft has 56% saying yes.

Women In Combat And Registering For The Draft

If the country ever has to restart its military draft program, should women with children be given an exemption? That issue was split right down the middle.

Women In Combat And Registering For The Draft

Single parent females in the military were given a pass on combat — 77% say they should not be in that situation.

Women In Combat And Registering For The Draft

Our friends at the Media Research Center also did some polling on a college campus.

See the full poll with results HERE.

Benghazi, IRS, AP...What's next? Only TheBlaze TV offers the truth from Glenn Beck, Andrew Wilkow, and Real News from TheBlaze. Get instant access and a free trial here.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (147)

ColoradoMaverick
Posted on January 31, 2013 at 1:20pm
I grew up with “strong minded” women. My sister is a cop and a good one. If a woman can do the job as good or better than her male counter-parts, then sure, let them.

Don’t lower the standards so that women can pass the test though. If a woman wants to be a fire fighter, then she better be able to carry the hoses, carry people, do everything that the males have to do.

You don’t see women in the NFL… Why is that? It’s simple. They physically cannot compete in the NFL or even college. You might find some high school female players and even more middle school, but above that, they simply don’t have the physical ability.

The second problem: If a female troop is on the front line and gets pregnant, then what? She gets out? That’s understandable but not fair to the males.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- RANGER1965
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 1:26pm
  Let me tell you a tale about our enemy, so you understand what we’re dealing with.
  
  He is young and has grown up being taught about how evil America is. He has also grown up watching the same American movies that you did. He see’s giants of physicality and technology that win every time. His people are depicted most often as weak, sneering, villians.
  Our enemy hates this, but kinda believes it too. They see our male soldiers and they really are giants, and they really are hyper competent, and they are just plain better than they are. This really ****** him off.
  They also watch our porn when they have internet access. They watch American Porn more than you. They fantasize about American women, but hate them at the same time for tempting them away from Allah. It’s a dangerous duality.
  If American Women start killing the Soldiers of Allah, then you can bet that Al Queda knowing how Americans love their women will move heaven and earth to capture them. For the young soldiers it will be akin to a mythical heroic quest, and they will die trying to capture American Female Soldiers.
  
  And some will be capured, and it will be filmed and released on the internet, and what they will do to them will be unspeakable. And they will take their time. Perhaps years. being moved from village to village, raped and abused, and eventually married off. She will never see her home again.
  
  Count on it.
  
  Report this comment
- RANGER1965
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 1:29pm
  “Don’t lower the standards so that women can pass the test though.”
  
  They will be, otherwise the program will look like a failure. Too many egos at the Pentagon level are now attached to this fiasco program.
  
  Except for a few amazons, most women won’t be able to keep up with the men, in combat arms. But it won’t matter, they’ll be given the job anyway.
  
  LOOK PEOPLE, Except for a few outstanding exceptions, WOMEN CANNOT DO THIS JOB TO THE LEVEL THAT IT NEEDS TO BE DONE! TRUST ME. IT”S TOO DAMNED HARD.
  
  Report this comment
- The_Jerk
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 3:11pm
  Sandra Fluke epitomizes the do for me American woman.
  
  Report this comment
- RANGER1965
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 3:27pm
  @ THE JERK
  
  Unfortunately to many of these types will be trying to get into combat arms for the faster promotions, and with lowered standards they will be allowed in.
  
  They will get in, screw up a unit; have an incredibly hard time, and be transferred out. They will leave the unit behind them in shamble for months.
  
  Report this comment
- MONICNE
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 4:40pm
  My Dad and most Dads in our little coal town were WWII veterans with a common bond stronger than any differences they had. Moms and Aunts and at home civilians pitched in to support the War effort. At-Home clergy and conscientious objectors made a difference without going into combat..
  
  Every American should register for National Service (the draft) and should serve a 2 years in some paid capacity – not necessarily military service, but with Homeland Defense or Law Enforcement or Research & Development or even Diplomacy. Something that helps reduce the deficit and protect Americans.
  
  Future Doctors and Lawyers, Engineers, Computer Experts, Linguists, Teachers, Mechanics, Reporters, Financiers, Policemen and Chefs would honor their American heritage and bond together as Citizens.with a common goal. It works for Israel.
  
  Also, the skills and technologies that make American strategic dominance legendary are contributed to by women who are on the average better than men, and have nothing to do with upper body strength. We make better maps and targeting plans, and are better programmers
  
  Every able minded US citizen at the age of 11 should receive NRA training with long guns and at the age of 18 should be required to apply for a concealed carry permit. Once a concealed permit is granted, the teen could be be issued a basic Glock 9 MM or similar pistol. The USA can afford it.
  
  TEA – It doesn’t need to be a hate fest. It does need to be a deficit buster.
  
  Report this comment
- Thomas
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 4:44pm
  If they do there should be no half way crap like they always pull. Make them register for the draft also. If women go along with this competition with men then they shouldn’t have the right to pick and choose when it is going to be equal and when they aren’t. I think we should get rid of all women sports also and make them either be able to cut it or not. Either you are for women lib or cut it out all together.
  
  Report this comment
- RANGER1965
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 7:25pm
  @Monicne
  
  Right out of Robert Heinlein’s Star Ship Troopers. Truthfully, I couldn’t agree more.
  
  Report this comment
- RANGER1965
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 7:28pm
  @ Thomas
  
  Sadly it won’t go that way. Women’s standards will have to be much lower in order for enough women to be able to succeed, so they can call the program a success. That’s the military way.
  
  Report this comment
YeahYouu
Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:34pm
Anything you can do,
I can do better.
I can do anything
Better than you.
No, you can’t.
Yes, I can. No, you can’t.
Yes, I can. No, you can’t.
Yes, I can,
Yes, I can!
I guess we’re about to find out. In the past it was said that blacks couldn’t keep up with whites and that their inclusion would only degrade the Military but that was wrong.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- RANGER1965
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:49pm
  We are about to find out. Only it won’t be a rueful grin and a little shame when we find out how bad this mistake is. It’ll be lost legs, lost arms, body bags, rape, preganancy, demoralized units, and law suits. But worst of all?
  
  It’ll be captured female soldiers, and the films they will send out every year on her birthday. We will never see them, because they’ll be too graphic. The things they’ll do to our women will make a pig puke. And they’ll take their time.
  
  Report this comment
- YeahYouu
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 1:12pm
  And if a woman chooses to accept such risk how is it any different than a man choosing to take such a risk? Torture is torture and it doesn’t matter the sex of the soldier or whatever act of torture is carried out on the soldier. Men have sued and won cases against the Military, so that argument is pointless. Loss of limbs is a risk in life that we take on just walking out the front door, so that argument is pointless. Pregnancy happens, I don’t expect to see pregnant women on the battlefield so I don’t understand why you brought that up. You may be active military or an inactive vet but a captured, wounded or dead soldier (male or female) is demoralizing so that doesn’t make any sense either.
  
  Report this comment
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 1:28pm
  Invalid comparison. Being black, white, blue, purple or yellow doesn’t diminish or increase your physical stamina and ability to be an effective soldier on the field from a phsiological perspective.
  
  No matter how much you twist in the wind, cover your ears and sing “la la la la” though, end of the day, reality says that men are vastly stronger than women when compared on a percentage to percentage level. Yes, one or two severe Butch types can throw a 240 pound guy like over their shoulder, but 99.9% of women cannot. You can’t defeat physics and reality, end of the day.
  
  And thus, the straw man was knocked down.
  
  Report this comment
- aproudinfidel
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 1:29pm
  @rangerman: Combat veterans understand this. I could not have said it better than you did. Bad idea on so very many levels.
  
  Report this comment
- RANGER1965
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 1:33pm
  @YEAHYOU
  
  It’s not about risk, it’s about the ability to perform at a level and standard that men in an Infantry, Airborne, Ranger, or Special Forces unit have to perform. Physically, Mentally, and Emotionally.
  
  Except for a very few, they can’t. Simply can’t.
  
  Your argument isn’t with policy, it’s biology and American culture.
  
  Sorry, it just won’t work the way it’s imagined.
  
  Report this comment
- Fubared
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 1:41pm
  Yeahyou
  How about just the torture of actual infantry training? 25 mile road marches with real equipment, throw in mopp gear and 100 degrees in the shade? Don’t hypothesize beyond the need to lower standards from the get go. We just lowered and marginalized our front line troops to feel and emote. If 2-5% of a group are the only ones that can pass physically (waste), what will the true bean counters then do? They “feel” they are too smart, they will “feel” the need for expected results to be lowered. We as Americans should always take the easy way out and lower the bar so everyone can have a cookie and trophy and put the responsibility onto another group to make up the difference. That is how we got here right? You should listen to 65″ a bit.
  
  Report this comment
- YeahYouu
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 4:46pm
  The problem is everyone looks at a soldier and instantly thinks this person is at their strongest but this is not the case for compared to an NFL player they are physically weak. I don’t want to be disrespectful of the soldiers or anything but the reason why there is minimal standards is to assign a pass/no pass grade to a recruit. There is no reason to lower the standards because the current standards are not beyond the level of a woman to pass. There are far more stringent physical standards applied to other activities that women excel at.
  As far as combat goes, look at the police and then the rape issues, they don’t face any different risks going to work.
  Ironman Triathlon is one of a series of long-distance triathlon races organized by the World Triathlon Corporation (WTC) consisting of a 2.4-mile (3.86 km) swim, a 112-mile (180.25 km) bicycle ride and a marathon 26.2-mile (42.2 km) run, raced in that order and without a break. Most Ironman events have a strict time limit of 17 hours to complete the race, where the Ironman race starts at 7:00 AM, the mandatory swim cut off for the 2.4-mile (3.9 km) swim is 2 hours 20 minutes, the bike cut off time is 5:30 PM, and all finishers must complete their marathon by midnight.
  http://www.girl-heroes.com/2010/04/08/girl-hero-jen/
  
  Report this comment
- RANGER1965
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 7:34pm
  @YEAHYOUU
  
  I’ve known women who compete and do well in Ultra Marathons. I know a woman MMA fighter who could likely kick my ass. But neither of these women would make it in the infantry.It’s not a sport, its not a prize fight. Its brutal hard work. It goes on for months at a time.
  
  There are some women who could do it, but they are far and few between. Most cannot, therefore the standards will be lowered to accomodate them. This will decrease our military readiness.
  
  Report this comment
- YeahYouu
  Posted on February 1, 2013 at 1:48am
  The standards will not be lowered, if anything I imagine they will get tougher due to higher enrollment. What if scenarios.?.?.?.? What if it goes the opposite way of your opinion?
  I do know this… I would rather have beside me a female soldier who volunteered but operates with slightly less abilities than me, in place of a soldier who was drafted and operates with much greater abilities than me.
  At least you admit there are some females out there that can do it, but I would argue that the reason that they are “Few and Far” between is because they haven’t had the opportunity to. Why would women who could handle it join the military only to not be allowed to do it and be relegated to “Feminine” duties?
  
  Report this comment
USACommoner
Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:30pm
Allowing women in combat would weaken our military, but allowing gay men wouldn’t…??

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- RANGER1965
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:38pm
  Even though don’t ask, don’t tell is no longer the law of the land. When it comes to combat arms, it’s still “unofficially” very MUCH! in effect.
  
  Flamers, activists, and the outspoken find their lives utter hell, and they get transferred to a REMF unit. It might not be fair, but it’s just the way it works.
  
  Report this comment
tyuchic
Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:26pm
there are always exceptions, but men tend to protect, women tend to nurture. they will not work well together in a combat unit. i don’t agree with women on the front lines, but since it’s now history, the least they should do is keep their units segregated, AND, more importantly, they need to start signing women up with selective service at age 18. if obama thinks this is the way to go, then he should be a leader and drive his oldest daughter to the post office on her 18th birthday and show he’s willing to register her for selective service. even though i know and he knows she’ll never be made to serve, i don’t think he would even consider it, even just for appearance sake.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- RANGER1965
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:44pm
  Segregation might be the answer. Since we have no choice now.
  
  Men, (Real Men), will protect women, it’s deeply ingrained, like concrete. You just can’t help it. When a women screams in that high pitched way because her femur above the knee just got turned into bits of shrapnel all over the truck seat. You can bet that the mission is the LAST! damn thing on any man’s mind that is within hearing distance of her crying. That’s just the way it is folks.
  
  Report this comment
- Melvin Spittle
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 1:24pm
  RANGER1965
  
  You are now a dinosaur. The definition of a real man has “evolved”. Many would have us believe that the majority of women prefer men that are hyper sensitive to their struggle for equality. These new age men no longer have the ability to react effectively to a threat to their family and will hang on the line with ADT while their home is invaded. These men feel it is not their accountability to protect their family: That is what the police are for. They are not comfortable around “shooty thingies” or are not allowed to own them. A growing number of women prefer this new-age man-child model.
  
  One example of this was seen at the GOP convention when Code Pink brought their man-children with them and they willfully donned “******” costumes to support their masters agenda of “my ****** is my source of power, reason and equality”.
  
  Report this comment
- RANGER1965
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 1:41pm
  @MELVIN SPITTLE
  
  I know. Most of the men on these forums are as well, so I’m in good company. A woman that loves her man enjoys her feminine characteristics, and is in anyway submissive to man has also joined us on our prehistoric journey. Again, we are in good company.
  
  Report this comment
LarryL2
Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:17pm
So many of you are ridiculous. Many countries, including Israel have female combat troops. They have to be able to handle it, just like men. And for those that want that opportunity, why do you care? If you think allowing women in combat means ANYONE can be on the front lines, you’re an idiot. Training, ability, temperment. Just like anyone else. Grow up. You all sound like leftovers from the 1950′s.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:21pm
  False. Israeli women are support. Sorry.
  
  They’ve deployed a handful (like, 10) to front lines, and it wasn’t a spectacular success. They only had their first female *combat pilot* (not field grunt) get trained in 2002.
  
  Report this comment
- RANGER1965
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:27pm
  @LARRY2
  
  Negative. Israel does train their women for combat roles, and they are prepared if the SHTF. They’ll have too because the country is being invaded.
  
  HOWEVER! Currently Israel does NOT employ women in active combat roles like infantry. They do allow them roles which puts them in alot of danger. Which we already do as well.
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:31pm
  if you got sick of hearing out rape in the election – just wait until females are mixed with forward deployed troops…..
  
  Report this comment
- Melvin Spittle
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:43pm
  Op, you believe your reasoning is superior to others and demand they grow up. From your comment I can see that your argument is critically flawed in that you believe a woman’s decision to go into a combat role will only impact her and you ask why should we care. This statement alone indicates you may be limited to stage one reasoning skills. It is you that need to grow up. I have found that debating those stuck at stage one is futile so this will be my only reply.
  
  Report this comment
- Melvin Spittle
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 1:05pm
  soybomb315_II
  
  The incident of sexual assault and willing fraternization in Iraq is alarming, yet expected. The stats have confirmed my belief that the general unrestricted deployment of our nations daughters to the combat theater has had a significant impact on morale and combat readiness. When the decision was made to deploy women in the combat theater, the risk to readiness took a back seat to political feminist agenda’s that deny the biological and emotional differences between the sexes.
  
  As a senior leader, I lost four female soldiers while in Iraq due to pregnancy due to fraternization. One of them was actually prostituting herself. I place readiness over rights. At the end of the day, I am short on my teams due to the female soldiers being sent back and NOT replaced. No matter ones opinion, this is the reality. I can tell you from experience that I have had female soldiers come on to me in order to gain leverage and favors. As a Christian married male, I do not appreciate it and have seen many of my peer’s careers ruined due to female initiated seduction.
  
  The negative impact of sexual misconduct to the morale of soldiers both male and female in a combat zone is significant and common. It is bad enough that I have had to deal with male on male sexual assault and misconduct in my unit that has been trending up over the more than twenty years of my military career due to changing moral values.
  
  Report this comment
Ray2447
Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:17pm
The requirements for front-line, ground combat roles should be clear and apply to all regardless of sex. That’s the equality that keeps getting shoved down men’s throats every time they turn around in any other situation in life.

If women are unable to meet the qualifications, they should not be there (front-line ground combat), nor should a man if he is unqualified.

Absolutely, women should be required to register with the Selective Service System when they turn 18, the same as a man. Why should men have to shoulder those responsibilities and women have the privilege, the choice to opt out.

With over 50, 000, 000 American women choosing to have abortions over the past 5 decades, it’s very clear that women’s reproductive value as “population preservers” isn’t necessary. If it’s a woman’s right to choose not to serve in front-line ground combat, then it’s also a man’s right to choose not to serve in front-line ground combat.

It’s time women learn to account for themselves the same as any other citizen, including front-line, ground combat. It doesn’t take that much strength to carry or pull the trigger on an M-16. The rest of the arguments against women serving in front line ground combat are just bologna. Get used to your new combat role ladies.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- RANGER1965
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 1:12pm
  @Ray,
  
  Unfortunately that’s not how it works.
  
  The standards will not be the same, because if they were the program would be seen for the joke it is. Sure there are always exceptions. I’ve met a few in my time.
  Real No S**T GI Janes that can hang with the men, handle the sexual politics and the stupidity of being in a platoon of 20 somthing alpha males, and can kill people and laugh about it later.
  
  They are as rare as hen’s teeth though. We have a generation of people that have been watching bad mamba jamba women fight men like a hot knife going through butter, and do it looking good. That’s what many think of when they support this decision.
  
  The real mud and blood is different. It really is hell.
  
  The standards will be lowered. Bank on it.
  
  Report this comment
Lefty leaning right
Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:07pm
If woman want to serve in combat the they should . woman have been serving in combat in Israel from 1948 on. When you have bad guys on 3 sides and a Sea to your west everyone must defend their homeland. P.S if you want to feel safe in a group full of woman let them be Israeli ! there is no reason for not letting woman serve as they see fit ! Blazers get over your male bullsh*t they may not be able to lift a 200 lbs battle pack but they can most likely out shoot and fight your Azz. !

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- SamIamTwo
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:17pm
  If the forces do not lower their standards and the female can pass muster then I have no problem…US servicewomen have served in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
  
  Report this comment
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:20pm
  You clearly don’t understand how the real military works. You don’t just show up in a bus, get off, and start shooting. You hump that ruck for miles, and miles, and miles and miles. You carry your full pack because that’s all between you and starving, dehydrating or dying. You carry all of your other equipment on this march as well, including NBC gear. This is a heavy load, and it’s heavier for every mile. I never went on one forced march, not ONE, in my time in the military where, if we traveled at standard speed, the women didn’t drop after the first mile or two.
  
  Israeli women generally do NOT serve on the front lines, and sit in support roles. The first *pilot* that was a woman didn’t appear until 2002. They tried one deployment of women to a checkpoint and it caused such controversy and issues with joint patrols that it was more trouble than it was worth.
  
  Sometimes not going with the talking points works better than adhering to them.
  
  Report this comment
- Fubared
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:32pm
  Lefty
  Who is going to carry the femme’s gear and ammo? Is this a shovel ready thing where we need two males for each female to actually meet standards? How many women can you personally point to and know they can carry 80-100 pounds for weeks on end? Personal hygiene not an issue of course, but for the enlisted in the garrison aspect, just all co-ed or retrofit everything to spur the economy? Common sense has left us and lets just yawn and lower real standards. Sure.
  
  Report this comment
- RANGER1965
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:55pm
  Only someone that really doesn’t know how Combat Arms could say that.
  
  Lefty, they’ve already lowered the physical standards for women on their PT test because if they kept the men’s standards, most couldn’t make it.
  
  Every year the stats are the same. The top 20% of women on their PT tests touch the bottom 20% of men on theirs.
  
  Are there a few GI Janes out there who have the ability and the desire? Yes.
  
  But there are alot more who have the desire, but not the ability. The DOD’s answer will be lowered standards.
  
  This isn’t an opinion, it’s as certain as the sun rising tomorrow and military intelligence being wrong 90% of the time.
  
  Trust me.
  
  Report this comment
- Chuck7884
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 1:28pm
  The Israeli experiment Failed. Reason you can train most things out of men sexuality is not one of them. reason The Sniper. Snipers would wound a female to kill the men who would respond to the woman.for every one woman sot 10 men would die to save her. This is the reason why females no longer serve on front lines the stats not the sex.
  
  Report this comment
- RANGER1965
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 1:43pm
  Well said Chuck.
  
  Report this comment
- Melvin Spittle
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 1:43pm
  Lefty leaning right, you talk the talk, but do you walk the walk? I would be happy to show you why your argument is critically flawed. You would never again question the inherent biological and emotional differences of the sexes.
  
  The problem is that men in leadership have allowed a group of deluded women to dictate dangerous policy. Some of these men in leadership are married to these deluded women.
  
  Report this comment
just_around
Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:05pm
Its easy to debate this when removed from the context of what “combat” really is. It is also easy to say they should be allowed if we ignore the impact of sexual attraction and the fact that men are wired to be protectors. These 2 aspects put together result in warriors behaving differently in times of combat that is not within the focus of their sworn duty.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- RANGER1965
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:56pm
  Well said.
  
  Report this comment
Stevsea
Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:04pm
When I was aspiring to join the USMC as a young man, and eventually did, and I found out that women would be in the same unit, I would have chose another path. How many young men would change their minds about joining if they knew that women will be training with them? Some men still would but for what reasons? A Marine Corps, Army platoon is a single unit. All for one, one for all. The entire unit does everything together 24 hours everyday. This includes showering (PT showers), chow, drill, school, field training, everything. That’s what makes a strong unit. The discipline that comes from that would be severely jeopardized in a co-ed situation.
Can women and men train together, be naked or fully uniformed ******* to belly button without incident? What about the natural attraction that will be a complete distraction to all training involved? This is so wrong on every single level of discussion. Some will say, “well they can stay in separate barracks but train together during the day.” That would be the separation of the unit making it 2 different units that compete against each other. The unit is therefore compromised and is no longer one unit. Just like every single other 2 party system, this will never work effectively and will weaken our military exponentially. We will be compromising our national security for an equal rights social experiment that will fail miserably. The best civilian comparison that I could come up with is women in professional football.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- RANGER1965
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 1:07pm
  HOOAH STEVSEA!
  
  Couldn’t have said it better.
  
  Report this comment
Chuck7884
Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:04pm
The very first thing a government will round up are the veterans. you can not have trained professionals opposing the Government. Civilians are not trained in the employment or emplacement of weapons they may learn to shoot correctly but veterans know which weapons to employ when. Right tool for the right job.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Toltepeceno
Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:03pm
As someone that spent 12 years in the service I think as long as women collect the same pay and benefits they should have the same requirements. When I was in they had the cake assignments and duty stations but were paid the same with the same benefits and retirement. Women with no experience were promoted over males due to creole group ratings. When I took the test for E6 I was in creole group D and had to score in the mid 90s, women were in creole group A but only had to score in the 70s. This way there will be no excuses, maybe everyone will be treated the same.

Do not want to serve in combat? Do not join.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- RANGER1965
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:36pm
  As a vet you know, and I know, that there are way too many ego’s attached to this program. It will be a “Must Not Fail” program.
  
  Therefore the bean counters will come up with a number. 33% or so. And it will become known that 33% of women will be passed or it will be reflected on your OER.
  
  And it will be so.
  
  That’s how the military works, it’s just that simple.
  
  Report this comment
- Toltepeceno
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 1:49pm
  Yes, that’s the way it will work. I do agree. It will be a bad system, but the equal but different system is bad also. It’s why I left. I did make E6, but I knew many good qualified men that did not while they wound up working for unqualified women.
  
  Report this comment
dnewton
Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:01pm
As I have said before, this is what you get when you let the dirt people be in charge. Their attitude about over population is at the bottom of this. When there are too many deer, we just open a doe season to control the population.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
soybomb315_II
Posted on January 31, 2013 at 11:56am
since we are always at war, might as well put all people in the front lines

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- RANGER1965
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 11:58am
  Wrong answer.
  
  Report this comment
- Toltepeceno
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:10pm
  I agree with the Iibtard believe it or not.
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:16pm
  The Frontlines of the war could be or are the malls of America & similar places. NPR reported a 4th conspirator. Yes, Al Qaeda is HERE!
  
  “Columbus Shopping Mall bombing plot”
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbus_Shopping_Mall_bombing_plot
  
  ***
  Do terrorists bomb civilians?
  
  Afula mall bombing
  2001 HaSharon Mall suicide bombing
  2002 Tel Aviv outdoor mall bombing
  2002 Karnei Shomron Mall suicide bombing
  2003 Afula mall bombing
  
  The mall bombings seemed to stop after Israel built a wall & CONTROLLED THEIR BORDER.
  
  How many souks were bombed by Al Qaeda in Iraq? A souk is basically an open air mall. Were the people in the souks Jews or Americans? Yet they were bombed.
  
  Terrorists will bomb malls. They are here. There are no front lines.
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:21pm
  maybe if we start putting children and old people on the front lines, people will get sick and tired of always being at war
  
  Report this comment
- SquidVetOhio
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:41pm
  “maybe if we start putting children and old people on the front lines, people will get sick and tired of always being at war”
  
  I’m sure I’ll enemies would be real happy with that. Thank God you’re not in charge of anything. News Flash: We are always at war because bad people no longer fear us. Funny how a few well placed **** whoopins’ by Ronaldus Magnus punked out the Soviets. Problem is when we go to war, we don’t utterly destroy our enemy like we use to.
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:53pm
  please expand on the Reagan ****-whooping. What are you referring to? And are you saying soviets fell apart cuz of american military? I thought it was because they had a communist economic system?
  
  With regard to our enemies…..I dont think our enemies are really enemies anymore. In many ways, the US government is the biggest evildoer in the world (based on pure quantity). I agree with James Madison who said, “If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 1:32pm
  soybomb315_II
  please expand on the Reagan ****-whooping. What are you referring to? And are you saying soviets fell apart cuz of american military? I thought it was because they had a communist economic system?
  ***
  Are you so damn limited in your thinking?
  
  How do you stop Attila the Hun? You deny him loot. His economy was one ran on loot. You don’t necessarily have to win open, pitched battle. Sometimes Fabian tactics work.
  
  By building up a strong defense & keeping the Soviet Union from winning, you give time for their structure to collapse on itself. Success breeds success. If you win a war say WW2 you can take spoils from the defeated country even if it is nailed down. 3 things kept the Soviet Union afloat. The willingness to use force to suppress dissent, the willingness to use force to expand, Siberian oil. Reagan attacked the latter 2. The Saudis pumped enough oil to bankrupt the Soviet Union (& Texas in the 1980s). And Reagan blocked their expansion (or attempted to: Nicaragua, Angola ) in Grenada & Afghanistan & Western Europe.
  
  Limited! Cannot you do a multifactor analysis?
  
  You not the type that varies one factor at a time & hold the others constant & then varies another factor while holding the other factors constant are you? If so we cannot talk because we will talk past one another.
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 1:45pm
  soviet union was winning, they were still expanding when they began to fall apart. They fell apart because of a failed economic system and the human spirit.
  
  we bankrupted ourselves and caused an entire generation to turn liberal (korea/vietnam wars) – i hardly think we can claim that whole thing as a victory. The only reason our economy did not turn to shambles is that we have the world’s reserve currency. Big government is a drag on the economy and if you dont think so – consider becoming a keynesian.
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 7:48pm
  The Soviet Union did not expand its’ empire after 1979. The Soviet Union fell in 1991. That is 12 years & over 1/2 a generation.
  
  If the Soviet Union had had oil profits they would have held on longer. This was denied to them.
  
  Military victories & defeats are also important. When you rack up victory after victory many people ally with you not out of love but because they don’t want to be the next victim.
  
  Stopping the Soviet Union in Afghanistan was important. We did not stop them in Angola. But we fought them hard enough long enough to slow them & prevent Angola from becoming a new launching pad for more communist jihad. The same was true of Nicaragua in spite of the roadblocks placed by a decadent Democrat led Congress.
  
  Report this comment
RANGER1965
Posted on January 31, 2013 at 11:56am
FINE!

Now a women can join us carrying an 80 pound ruck sack, armor, kevlar helmet, their weapon, and a full combat load of ammo and grenades, while running in a skinny little ditch beside a sun baked road for 10 miles in 110 degree temperatures.

Now a woman can pull a 220 pound man out of a burning Humvee and toss his burned, shot up, and screaming A** on her shoulders and haul him 120 yards to a low stone wall while being shot at. Because that’s the only cover and concealment for a country mile.

Now a woman can **** stroke and kick the crap out of a bunch of sullen Iraqi teenagers who refuse to lay down when we’re clearing a room.

Now a woman can shoot a screaming imbecile in the head from 5 feet away and watch his skinny arms flail about and see that last O face as he s**ts himself. Then she can laugh about it with her buddies, because if you don’t laugh you’ll go friggen insane. And she can do that every damned day for months at a time without any breaks.

Now a woman can be exposed to a platoon of hungry, horny, 20 somthing alpha males who will all be competing to get in her pants, because…well…that’s what 20 somthing males do. (Remember your teens and 20′s men? How many of you had good judgement?)

Can women keep up with 20 somthing bad ass door kickers? very few.
Will they lower the standards? Hell yeah.
Will this reduce a unit’s effectiveness in combat? Yep.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- AvengerK
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:04pm
  A quote from the film “The Enforcer” comes to mind…”that’s a hell of a price to pay for being stylish”.
  
  Report this comment
- dnewton
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:06pm
  How dare you contradict the brass in the military who have assured us that this is going to be fine. Was this the same bunch that seems to find no controversy with Gays in the military too? The next thing you know the army will have to get a union. Don’t think that has not been done. They tried it in Holland. Apparently the military is just another arena of social experimentation like our schools and the monetary system.
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:42pm
  the military brass has been corrupted because they are the government. Also has been corrupted because we no longer fight real wars – its all about hearts & minds and nation-building. Instead of fighting a real war with achievable objectives, we fights these ridiculous wars that cannot be won and kill just enough people to keep the battlefield moving from country to country
  
  Report this comment
- pragmaticpatriot
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 3:34pm
  i agree with you Ranger, i do not want my daughters in combat. It seems this idea is more of a socialist equallity thing to me, or perhaps a specious argument to distract from The Agenda- destruction of our Great Society.
  The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
  
  Sir Winston Churchill
  
  Report this comment
- americangrammy
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 10:40pm
  Ranger, you are so very right. But you will never convince the progressive dreamers because they don’t care about truth or history or reality. They live in a dreamworld where if only they could force all of us to conform to their altered reality, well then the world would achieve true peace and harmony.
  I used to work with these people. They are not in touch with reality and there’s nothing you can say or do that will wake them up.
  My husband was in Desert Storm. He saw many female soldiers sent home because they were pregnant, most of them deliberately. They left their units short of needed personnel and the ones left behind had to work harder and longer to fill the gap. And these were support people. Imagine what this will do to combat units.
  I wish that those who don’t have your experience and insight would listen to you with an open mind, but I’m not gonna hold my breath.
  
  Report this comment
Dismayed Veteran
Posted on January 31, 2013 at 11:54am
Women in the infantry, armor, artillery: No

Women in attach helicopters, jets, bombers, medevac helicopters, resupply helicopters: Yes

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- RANGER1965
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 11:59am
  Good answer.
  
  Report this comment
objectivetruth
Posted on January 31, 2013 at 11:52am
In conventional front line combat absolutely not.There should be no difference in the qualifying physicals either.Women aren’t capable of doing the job.They can’t rescue team members can’t keep up and overall will cause a handicap on the battle field.I can think of one area in the front line that they might be well qualified for at least in unconventional warfare.However these positions have a higher rate of being taken as prisoner of war.There they will experience horrors they aren’t prepared for.Most women when given the real truth won’t want these positions.
I want to know why women think they can do the job?Are you an amazon?”The packs[150 pounds?] themselves outweigh me by at least 40 45 pounds.Even the old packs were over half my body weight.If anyone seriously thinks women my size would be able to cut it in the field with the packs included are insane deluded or just plain stupid.
To the feminazis Your day is done.You are finished.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- RANGER1965
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 11:58am
  The standards will be lowered. Otherwise the program will look like a failure, and women will claim discrimination.
  
  Report this comment
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:04pm
  @Ranger
  
  That is exactly what will happen, and we have a long history of social engineering idiots doing just this kind of thing. Since they (the social engineers) cannot see fault in anything they do, ever, then reality must be made to conform to their vision. And if that means the needless slaughter of individuals in order to help them maintain their fantasy view of the world, then so be it.
  
  Report this comment
- Toltepeceno
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:07pm
  Ranger, boot camp standards were long lowered when women started going through mixed with the males. Too late to save the standards, about 35 years or so too late.
  
  Report this comment
- RANGER1965
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 1:03pm
  @TOLTEP
  
  Yes, the standards are lowered, and that’s fine when a women is flying a helicopter, setting up commo and networks, or working in intelligence.
  
  It’s not fine if they are trying to keep up with the men in a Ranger Batallion. It’s not fine if she needs to jump through a window with weapon and gear, land on a rickety table that collapses under her weight, and has to wrestle with a screaming Jihadist that smells like moldy cheese and has that country boy wiry strength that never, ever quits.
  
  It’s not fine when a woman has to hump 10 miles in armor, Kevlar, 80 pound ruck, Saw, and lots of extra ammo, in 100 degree heat. And she has to keep up, because if she can’t then we lose the SAW, reduce the units effectiveness, and it just sucks.
  
  Report this comment
sbenard
Posted on January 31, 2013 at 11:52am
The left wants us all to think this is just about “equality”. Well, “equality” would also require that in the next war the requires a draft, we send young mothers off to war, with children at home — just like we do with MEN!
And if we give Moms an exemption, then we are just creating moral hazard that encourages young women to become pregnant — married or not — to avoid a war-time draft! And that could result in even more children without fathers, more poverty, and greater demands for welfare benefits.
Do these people EVER think about the long-term consequences of their calamitous policies?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- RANGER1965
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:00pm
  Long term? The next election perhaps.
  
  Well said SBENARD!
  
  Report this comment
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:07pm
  You know, I wonder why men don’t get the same maternity leave as women when there’s a new arrival showing up at his home? Since we’re ignoring physical realities, might as well go full monty, right?
  
  Also, I now get a good week every month where I’m allowed to shoot people and get off scot free in the legal system. Sure, I don’t get PMS, but we’re ignoring physical realities now, so I demand equal rights!
  
  Report this comment
desert buckeye
Posted on January 31, 2013 at 11:50am
Women can’t compete with men in head to head sports competition…with few exceptions.
Can we have an effective fighting force without women in it? YES!
Can we have an effective fighting force without men in it? NO!
So, a female fighting force can only be effective if men are in it. Women depend on men in this arena. Not the other way around. No women in combat roles. At least not as ‘ground pounders.”

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- RANGER1965
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 11:57am
  Only a few, a very few will be able to really handle it. But those few will be overshadowed by the many, the very many that cannot handle it, but will be given the job anyway.
  
  Report this comment
- naughtycal
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:08pm
  Exactly if all the olympic events were co-ed there would be no women metalist in 90% of the olympic.
  If all sports were co-ed there would be a girl that would make it on a single winning team. It’s not sexist it’s genetics. Men a women aren’t equal men are stronger,bigger,faster,and tougher things that evolved from the role of hunter and provider. That’s not saying women can’t do these things and do them good it’s just men(most) have these abilities in our DNA.
  
  Report this comment
- Conservative_Veteran
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 7:05pm
  As a Medic I served in all three Combat Arms units (Infantry, Armor, and Artillery). I did not get the opportunity to serve with Combat Engineers. A woman would not physically survive in any Combat Arms assignment. They simply don’t have the endurance, stamina, and strength to be a contributing team member. The team will only perform to the level of the lowest performer. The team will be slowed down, have to cross load her combat load to the men, and otherwise make up for her shortcomings.
  
  I would like to see a female hump projo’s in tank or artillery piece for hours and days on end, and hump 100+ lbs through terrain that is nearly impassable.
  
  As a door gunner/crew chief in Vietnam it was a physically tough and emotionally demanding job. Zero down time, always either flying or repairing. Humping two M60′s, an M79, M16 and .38 cal pistol out to the bird in the morning and back again at the end of day, then cleaning all of them, and going back to the bird to mend and fix. Hooked up to 1500 rounds and sitting on 4500. Day in, day out for a year, with a one week break for R&R. I don’t believe a female could keep up with the grueling pace.
  
  Conservative Veteran, CSM, USA, retired after 31 years.
  
  Report this comment
- RANGER1965
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 7:36pm
  @Conservative_Veteran,
  
  Hooah!
  
  Report this comment
alishamommyof5
Posted on January 31, 2013 at 11:43am
I think it is a small minority of woman who want this. Most woman I know still want doors opened, treated nice, be protected, and to feel treasured. It is how we are wired. We will protect of our children, but what can we do against a man? That is why I have a 38 special and know how to use it. The feminists are screwing things up for woman.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- objectivetruth
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 11:59am
  Don’t guess you knew but the military itself causes some of the problems.They complain about pregnancy rates yet women can’t get birth control on base.Well if the article was correct.They also aren’t allowed an abortion on base either.[That I understand]The article doesn’t state whether they can off base.
  If this is the case then the military is shooting itself in the foot so to speak.On both accounts.I am assuming they can’t off base either thats why I made that statement.
  
  Report this comment
- RANGER1965
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:02pm
  This time it’s a big screw up. When a woman can’t hack it in combat arms she gets herself and her platoon mates killed.
  
  Report this comment
- RANGER1965
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:19pm
  @OBECTIVETRUTH,
  
  Rather than an olympic event, or any sports at all, think of the infantry as 1920′s Lumber Jacks, hauling saws, axes, heavy equipment, food, and camping gear up a steep mountain in the middle of the summer heat. While getting shot at.
  
  When they get to the top of the mountain they cut down trees all day, sleep in a tent for a few hours, and do it again the next day, every day, sometimes for weeks. And they’re being shot at.
  
  Thats Infantry.
  
  If you add Airborne, Ranger, or Special Forces to your pedigree, just multiply the above by 100.
  
  Report this comment
- objectivetruth
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 1:38pm
  @Ranger
  You are actually refering to Desert Buckeyes post.I didn’t use the olympic sport ananology.
  Thank you for the gentile manner in which you described combat though.Its actually far worse than your explaination.
  
  Report this comment
- RANGER1965
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 1:46pm
  I know but if I get too excited, I start swearing too much. Blaze has standards.
  
  Report this comment
omgfolks
Posted on January 31, 2013 at 11:38am
This is just plain ridiculous.Women have no place in direct combat roles, support roles yes, but not combat. The feminine movement in their zeal to prove they are as tough as men only shows the emotional issues they burden. Instead being happy with who they are, they try to be something they are not, pretending a 105 pund woman can carry a ruck weight of 80 lbs and then pulling a fallen soldier to saftey is just plain stupid. This is part of the moral decay of Americans today. People so desperate for approval that they would rather pretend to be something they are not just to keep from dealing with who they are….

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- The_Jerk
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 11:48am
  Listen, if Fubard wants to serve, perhaps we should allow her that opportunity.
  
  Report this comment
- RANGER1965
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:02pm
  Well said OMGFOLKS
  
  Report this comment
- Fubared
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:17pm
  Jihad, I would always bow out and defer to yourself and WangDang. It only makes sense with the way things are currently with up being down and nazis being right and devil dogs piss ing on the 2nd. Only logical in that regard. As a skeered female, is there something in my demeanor or tone that would imply you are not a standard pos in a world of pos’s? Cheers, have a lovely nazi day.
  
  Report this comment
Chuck7884
Posted on January 31, 2013 at 11:36am
Men have no choice. Sec. Defense Opened Pandora’s box. All males in the Army and the Marines are Infantry first or Riflemen all as it would be deemed.This being the case choice is out of the question or equation as one would deem.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 11:51am
  Personally, were I an 11B or field artillery or another front line combat soldier, I’d let me term go past and not re-enlist. If I were a male officer, I’d resign my commission. Let the military be comprised of women, sure, great. And as the guys are discharging from the military they should consider heading right to the local gun shop and stocking up on the guns and ammo that they’ll need to fend off more highly capable field read invading forces that can’t wait to take advantage of us essentially disarming the military from a reality vantage.
  
  Because that’s all this is of course, the soft-neutering of the military. I hope people realize that, and then ask why.
  
  Report this comment
- Chuck7884
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 11:59am
  @GhostOfJefferson the very first thing a government will round up are the veterans. you can not have trained professionals opposing the Government. Civilians are not trained in the employment or emplacement of weapons they may learn to shoot correctly but veterans know which weapons to employ when. Right tool for the right job.
  
  Report this comment
- RANGER1965
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:03pm
  You’re right Chuck, its a done deal. God help us.
  
  Report this comment
- RANGER1965
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:04pm
  @ GHOST
  
  Won’t happen. it’ll be just another burden of command.
  
  Report this comment
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:08pm
  @Chuck
  
  We’ll, they’ll try. ;)
  
  Report this comment
- Chuck7884
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 1:14pm
  Oh they will try and in most cases’ will .overwhelm of force on an individual. they put a young marine in a mental institution awhile back if you recall .
  
  Report this comment
Fubared
Posted on January 31, 2013 at 11:30am
Sure they should serve, but only under the tutelage and wisdom of hero’s like Jihad Jerk and WangDang. Only makes sense. A ferocious Marine of impeccable insight into the meaning of 2A and self rule, and an occifer and a gent of the new 3rd reich without peer in belligerence. Fine, upstanding “men” both.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- RANGER1965
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:06pm
  Wow Fubared, sarcasm is about a foot thick, and you’re right.
  
  Report this comment
- Fubared
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:11pm
  By our own accord 65′.
  
  Report this comment
IMCHRISTIAN
Posted on January 31, 2013 at 11:29am
No way will most of the women be as strong mentally and physically to handle real combat. We are all built differently for a purpose and combat on front lines is not it. Well, it is one way to control population.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Dagnabbit5
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 11:45am
  Please, half the men in this country couldn’t handle front line combat. They might have penis’s but that doesn’t mean they have what it takes to serve in combat.
  
  Report this comment
- RANGER1965
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:12pm
  Most women will not be able to handle the physical requirements, so they will be lowered.
  
  Most women will not be able to handle the sexual politics, and stupidity that 20 somthing alpha males will put on them. Some will give them continuous crap, laughing at every fault and weakness, try to get them to cry or get mad. Why? Because that’s what guys do to each other, and it’ll be times 10 with a woman.
  Some men will be white knight protectors, and will (without meaning too) sabotage the woman’s chances of being able to compete with the men and earn their respect.
  
  Most of the guys will just be trying to get in her pants. And yes she will be out in the mud and blood like the rest of them, she won’t look very good by civilian standards,…but after a month of continuous operations, it don’t matter, she could be squatting to P**, and look like lady Godiva to a 20 year old.
  
  You’ll be able to cut the sexual tension with a knife after a month.
  
  And that’s just the way it is.
  
  Report this comment
- RANGER1965
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:15pm
  @Dagnabit
  
  You’re right sir. A penis doesn’t get you in the Infantry.
  
  Report this comment
Cavallo
Posted on January 31, 2013 at 11:27am
Careful what you wish for ladies.. although I somehow think that once again this is a situation of wanting their cake and to eat it too.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- The_Jerk
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 11:30am
  Women should be administrative personnel only, better if they weren’t in at all.
  
  Report this comment
- RANGER1965
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:22pm
  Not a cake. A gigantic S**T sandwich.
  
  Every stupid decision gets people hurt or killed. Every screw up is permanent. Everyone that can’t keep up with the men, forces others to compensate for that lack.
  
  This is an amazingly stupid decision that will see our daughters in body bags.
  
  Report this comment
naughtycal
Posted on January 31, 2013 at 11:26am
Only if they can keep up with the men. The last thing we need is liabilities on the battlefield.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- whatthecrazy
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:10pm
  You are correct!:)
  
  Report this comment
- RANGER1965
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 12:25pm
  Truly, only few can. Of those few, fewer still can shoot unbearded teenagers in the face and watch him murmer and talk in a soft voice for what seems like hours, when by all accounts he should be dead.
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.