Sarah, You go girls, go right to the front line, I agree that women can stop a bullet just as good as us men. If a few of you women stop enough bullets that means more of us guys will surive. Enough men have have given their life for freedom, it's about time you women did your part. You go girls!!!

You have no idea what its like in a hot combat zone. I fought in the bush in Nam, 2 tours of duty and pow. Listen lady, you don't want any part of this. Nothing against women, just trust me, war is very nasty and I'm not putting my life in the hands of a women.

Wow, not a single intelligent point in either of your posts. Not a single actual answer or position on anything I said, just go get shot???

Slow down on the anger. Seriously, you sound like nothing but two bitter, outdated misogynists. Do either of you have the capability of having an intelligent conversation about the pros/cons or logistics of this???

the REALITY of war on the ground is something i think you dont fully comprehend....being naive and passionate about serving your country is admirable...please dont ever wish that you see combat up close...the further away the better unless you are a bona fide warrior and can handle urban hand to hand fighting to the death....i dont think many women can pack the weight in the field....a womans death in afghanistan would be twice as bad as a mans death....please be careful what you wish for....if you want to help, there are many fields to be in...we cant all be tank commanders and fighter pilots....

btw...there are no "standards" in the field...you better be able to do the highest standards you can get to in training...because the field is always worse at times...

no intelligent posts?..if you cant see it, you are naive as i said above...

1)....men have grown up fighting more than women, i mean physically beating on each other and testing each other in combat of all sorts...the physical laws of nature rule in the field...there is no quitting....i personally cant recall ever seeing a viscious fight between women as much as men

2) if women will train with men without special facilities to accomodate them, then good...same standards, same showers, same toilets...you dont segregate due to gender in the field, so why train that way?....that right there will be the real hurdle...if you want to be treated without regard to sex, then really do it...

3) if a woman is captured by the enemy, the enemy will be men and they will torture the woman with rape and other atrocities....like a savage would....there are plenty of men who would give their own lives to stop that and they would if they had to...a much worse (more suffering) death for a woman than most men would get..it is a harsh anylisis but realistic under certain conditions

I served in ADA in the Army which is a combat arms area, during a NTC deployment we were short on our MTOW by serveral troops so our battery HQ "loaned" us several troops to make the cut. Along with my gunner, who was male, our battery ended up with 3 felame soldiers who were used as platoon Sgt drivers during that rotation. Of the three one was issued to my platoon, and being as we are mostly separated out we only ever saw her during ogistics runs(beans an bullets). Before our live fire exercise we spent the night in a NDP with the whole platoon, and upon waking in the morning all of us joe's stepped out of the vehicles and proceeded to answer natures call, and then there were 12 men peeing in a circle around her in her truck and we all realised at about the same time that we were screwed. Funny as it sounds, she did the coolest thing ever by laughing, stepping out of her truck, copping a squat and putting to rest our fears of reprimand. Given the chance, I have seen women be just as high speed low drag as any 18 year old "man" can pull off so I, for one say let them go for it, but realise that POW's are not treated well and some guys from your own unit will do everything they can to try to make you fail, some on purpose some because they see you as a little sister an try too hard to protect you.

I served in ADA in the Army which is a combat arms area, during a NTC deployment we were short on our MTOW by serveral troops so our battery HQ "loaned" us several troops to make the cut. Along with my gunner, who was male, our battery ended up with 3 felame soldiers who were used as platoon Sgt drivers during that rotation. Of the three one was issued to my platoon, and being as we are mostly separated out we only ever saw her during ogistics runs(beans an bullets). Before our live fire exercise we spent the night in a NDP with the whole platoon, and upon waking in the morning all of us joe's stepped out of the vehicles and proceeded to answer natures call, and then there were 12 men peeing in a circle around her in her truck and we all realised at about the same time that we were screwed. Funny as it sounds, she did the coolest thing ever by laughing, stepping out of her truck, copping a squat and putting to rest our fears of reprimand. Given the chance, I have seen women be just as high speed low drag as any 18 year old "man" can pull off so I, for one say let them go for it, but realise that POW's are not treated well and some guys from your own unit will do everything they can to try to make you fail, some on purpose some because they see you as a little sister an try too hard to protect you.

Sarah, I admire your bravery. I know for a fact that there are many young military women out there who are willing to make this sacrifice; I know because I am a war veteran and was pretty close to the combat zone for six months at the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Let me tell you, I am all about equality and being respected as a woman. The positions I have held in my career allowed me to be in charge of divisions which consisted of predominantly men, and I've earned my respect for being dedicated to my duties and making tough decisions that were necessary. However, I say this to you and any other woman who feel as though donning a rifle and marching towards the frontline is easy as it sounds. There are several things to consider in combat, and it has been brought up by other commentators; rape. Females are much more at risk to be assaulted if captured by the enemy. Also keep in mind that most of our wars have been in the Middle East, and in these regions American women are deeply resented; we are considered "whores" to these men simply because of having Western values, and then...because we are American. Be careful what you wish for, especially if you are a mother- there are things that are worth more than risking you life for on the frontline- just saying. I know that many mothers although patriotic will take a pass at being closer to danger. My point is, as a decorated female war veteran I would like others to ponder about all that is involved on the frontline, and not just the ability to shoot, and be physically equal to our male counterparts. Let me tell you, I've seen our boys train and between the heavy gears, getting knocked around and loooong hours on the field in harsh weather conditions- trust me, it is NOT EASY, hence why we regard these men with such valor, simply because they earn it!

Sorry ladies, you just THINK you want to go to the front lines. My husband served in Big Red 1 in Viet Nam on the front lines. The horror stories he has told still shake me to my core at 62. And I am not a wuss. I believe in equal rights for women, but absolutely not on the front lines. When they say war is hell, it is true.

I usually don't bother myself with responding to opinions because they are emotion-driven and not necessarily based on fact. But I do have some facts that I would like to share:

1. I am a 26 year old FEMALE Iraqi war veteran.

2. When I was shot at, and hit by IED shrapnel, it hurt just as much as it did the MEN that were around me.

3. My men trusted me to protect them, just as I did them. I made it very clear that I was not to be treated like a special and unique snowflake. I am soldier when I have that uniform on, and what's underneath is irrelevant when the @!$%# hits the fan.

4. Clearly, I was wounded in COMBAT. In assymetric warfare, there is NO SUCH THING as a frontline. Anyone who goes outside the wire takes the risk of being engaged by enemy combatants. They do not care if you are a man or a woman.

5. I served as an intelligence analyst, which to most is the equivalent of a glorified desk jockey. What most people don't realize is that in order to gather intelligence, you have to go somewhere to get it. I traveled all around Iraq assisting other units in MANY deliberate operations, serving as the SOLE intelligence specialist.

And finally, my opinion:

To make my war stories, or experiences in Iraq insignificant compared to that of a male soldier, is to disgrace the United States Army in its entirety. We all bleed and hurt the same way. When you voluntarily put yourself in the @!$%#, you gain respect from everyone around you regardless of your color, religion, ethnicity, and especially your gender. So damn all of you who thinks that what I went through is any less important than what a man did. I lost brothers over there. I watched it with my own eyes. And it hurt just as much, and the anger, the hatred and bitterness towards those bastards that did it still runs deep inside me. Some of you would be lucky to have your life in my hands.

No one is saying that your experience is less significant, obviously you have earned your rights just as any other soldier on the battle field; I commend you for your bravery!!! I believe that what many are saying is that it may be a less desirable situation for most women that will come with unpleasant consequences. Currently there are not many women serving close to combat, or allow me to say on the "frontline", as these numbers increase, one can expect to see an increase in assault on women (especially) by enemy combatants. Here is one possible theory; the enemy may intentionally choose to target women simply to distract male soldiers...now there is a new problem... male soldiers may feel obligated to battle with the enemy AND to protect their female counterparts which may present a new type of "stress". Let us not forget that war or not, human instinct still plays a very vital role, and my guess is that if a male soldier/marine/sailor sees his female co-worker being attacked; of course he would be obliged to defend her.

Lee,

Here is one possible theory; the enemy may intentionally choose to target women simply to distract male soldiers...now there is a new problem... male soldiers may feel obligated to battle with the enemy AND to protect their female counterparts which may present a new type of "stress".

Don't you think the onus of dealing with the men's psychology, should be place on the men's shoulders, instead of the women's? To me, it seems like we're taking a weekness of the males and using it against the females.

If men have issues with that, then those men shouldn't be on the frontline, they would be the one's not ready, at least mentally, for combat.

Sarah,

If you really want women to be in all positions in the military, that is fine with me.

No exceptions!

And if there is a future draft, hopefully not, then women would be in the draft and in frontline combat positions in an equal proportion to men.

Again, I have no problem with real equality on this issue.

Do you? And that is a legitimate question and not a rhetorical one.

@Sarah, It's obvious you are an intellectual, but this won't always prevent you from being WRONG. I tend to agree with you that if the woman can pass equal physical capability tests she maybe able to go to the front line. The women who actually make it will be few and far between. Furthermore, if these women are captured, they will be, more than likely, be raped. This is no GI Jane movie, it will be reality, torture and death. And yes, in most cases, the men will come under increased danger, if the women they fight with are in the least bit less capable.

Agreed, women have the same ability to pull a trigger, but if put in a position of a POW, they would be putting themselves in an even more dangerous position than a man. If our troops can't contain themselves with POW's (small percentage, but still idiot's are everywhere) how do you think the enemy would treat a women....I have NO PROBLEM with a woman wanting to serve to the fullest, but when you join the military, you are GOVERNMENT PROPERTY and THEY will decide for YOU. It may just be that old saying of be careful of what you wish for.

Independant,

Again, I have no problem with real equality on this issue.

Do you? And that is a legitimate question and not a rhetorical one.

Absolutely not. Nor do I believe that a woman who is capable of meeting those standards would want any kind of double standard.

BD,

And yes, in most cases, the men will come under increased danger, if the women they fight with are the least bit incapable

If a women meets the same physical standards as a man, than you have no basis for saying/believing she would be less capable. It's cut and dry, if she can do it, she can do it. Those standards are all you have to judge men by, before believing they would be capable in combat, ergo if those standards are enough to judge men, they're enough to judge women.

Furthermore, if these women are captured, they will be, more than likely, raped.

About one out of every three women experience sexual assault, right here, in their everyday lives. If we limit our opportunities based on the fear of rape, we would never leave our homes.

I don't think it would be common, nor do I think it would be easy. What I'm saying is, that there is no good reason to not allow us to at least TRY to meet those standards.

Good point Sarah and I agree with you people should be held accountable for their own feelings; but as I mentioned, much of it is "instinctive"- there is a difference. Like fathers, brothers and husbands will instinctively protect their sister/mother wife/girlfriend, so too will male soldiers on the battlefield. I have seen it happen time and time again in training where a male student will stop and literally drag a female student along an obstacle course. In the big scheme of things this is not discouraged of course because we are trained to "leave no man behind". I am not creating obstacles for women who want to serve in combat; I just want them to get a realistic view of how things are. Traditionally, women have not served in close combat in large numbers before and it could impact the way things are done on the battlefield. Unfortunately, whether one agrees or not, there are some roles that are specific to men and their physical and psychological makeup, especially when we are speaking in terms of the military and war.

Sarah-3043,

Actually YOUR life, as is every women's, IS more precious than that of any man's, from a strictly species survival point of view. It is simple reproductive math. If you have 100 women, and 10 men left in the world after a "war", how many children can you have a year later? 100. If you have the reverse, 100 men and 10 women, how many children do you get?? 10. Now for genetic diversity, count the combinations of children produced by those two groups, and then the children of those children so no two have same parents. I won't do it here, but guess which one "wins".

I know that is pretty repulsive to look at it that way, in such simplistic terms, but that is our biology. Why else would "men" have been fighting over "women" and the "resources" to attract/support them since the dawn of time??

Since you obviously have never been in the military or seen combat, your statement are based on pure ignorance. There was actually a study done by the Military back in the late 1980's and early 1990's looking at Men's and Women's combat efficiencyperformance when deployed "in the field" under "combat conditions" as part of the move to expand the role of women in the military. The Hypothesis of the Politically correct Feminist pushing the "Women in Combat"/Women at Sea initiatives was that women's performance was same as men'sor actually dropped less. In reality, it was found, just the opposite was true. When deployed "in the field" under simulated combat conditions, (i.e. No showers, No hot meals, no bathrooms, No tent or cots, no "personal" time, etc.); for first week no reduction in performance. End of 2nd week reduction was equal, after 3rd week men's reduction in performance stopped regardless of time out, while women's continued to decline until return from "front line". However; if women were rotated "to the rear" for 2 or 3 days for showers, hot meals, and "indoor bunk time", every 5 to 7 days, their performance mirrored that of the men, even if men remained "in the field" during that time.

Now, because these facts didn't fit with the Clinton Administration's Conclusionsand policies, the report was "shelved" and never released publicly. How do I know? Let's just say I have 1st hand knowledge and leave it at that.

To the author, join the military, than your argument might have some merit, or another example

Jessica Lynch

HD,

Actually YOUR life, as is every women's, IS more precious than that of any man's, from a strictly species survival point of view. It is simple reproductive math. If you have 100 women, and 10 men left in the world after a "war", how many children can you have a year later? 100. If you have the reverse, 100 men and 10 women, how many children do you get?? 10. Now for genetic diversity, count the combinations of children produced by those two groups, and then the children of those children so no two have same parents. I won't do it here, but guess which one "wins".

As a species, we are far past having to worry about any of that.

Can you provide a link, I would like to look at that study for myself. Furthermore, the "health" issues are ridiculous...

I'll give you some insight into females. PMS, isn't a debilitating disease except in some women who have PMDD. The menstrual cycle can also be completely controlled or cut off through different forms of BC. This is no different than the male soldiers who have to take a pill for some health reason. It can even be administered as a twice yearly shot.

Nor does going without a shower kill us. As gross as the concept may be to me personally, women won't die from this. Take a look at the third world.

In addition to all of that, when women drop below a certain body fat percentage, which to meet the physical requirements of combat, they would most likely need to do, the cycle ceases all together, and only restarts after fat levels rise again.

Lee,

I have seen it happen time and time again in training where a male student will stop and literally drag a female student along an obstacle course

Then I say, neither of them make it. I feel like we keep focusing on this, but we should be focusing on the women who won't be lagging behind.

Why is everyone targeting Sarah? If she wants to do it let her do it. I did it, and can still do it again if I need or want to. You always leave a little piece of yourself in the desert. The only thing is, what I endured as a "protected, delicate flower of an American girl" in my childhood was much worse than being shot or hit with IED's and mortars when I was in Iraq for 15 months. I welcomed the opportunity to go to war because it was nothing compared to the torture I received as a little girl. I endured every kind of abuse imagineable from the very men that everyone claims protect us in America. So my real question is, when women are beat, ridiculed, cheated on and abandoned by the very men that claim to want to protect them, what do we really have to lose if we go to war? Again, everyone gets wrapped around the axle over the term "combat job". I didn't have one and yet I was placed in positions where it was necessary to engage the enemy. A female could sign up for the military and work in personnel shuffling papers all day. She may have no desire to go outside the wire. And then one day, they mortar her fob and it hits the ALOC she works in, killing her and all the other S-1 soldiers. Where do you draw the line? It's war, not a pillow fight. Regardless of what you sign up for, you sign up knowing that eventually you will go to war. I went to Iraq with male soldiers that were reduced to sniveling, snot-nosed crying babies when they found out they were going to war. They should have never gone in the first place. What we really need is better systems to filter out those who are not emotionally or psychologically capable of bearing combat stress.

As far as the physical requirements, I carried over 150 lbs on my back, not including my protective gear. At the time I weight roughly 120 lbs. I ran my 2 miles in about 15 minutes, which for my age group at the time was the male standard, not female. I knocked out about 90 push ups in 2 minutes, and over 70 sit ups in 2 minutes. I am a five-foot nothing, heterosexual female mother of two that could run circles around most the males in my company. Why? Because I wanted to. And because I can. So Sarah, if you really want to do this, get your ass out there and do it. If I can do it, any female with the intestinal fortitude can do it. Don't worry about what these civilians say.

You seem very passionate about this; are you planning on joining the military? :-) You have the right attitude! Well to that I say, let them go ahead, but be prepared to face some very brutal conditions. Answer this; can you go with weeks without showering, brushing your teeth, lack of sleep, exposed to harsh weather conditions, having to dig a "cat hole" to do your number 1's and 2's in the bushes while a buddy watches your back to ensure your safety?? LOL :-) Do you like hearing cuss words in every few sentences from those around you? Do you mind profanity? Do you want to hear about your male counterparts talk about sexually explicit stuff?? My guess is no...but then the number of sexual harassment cases against males will rise because many females will not indulge in or tolerate this type of conversations!!! You have to be very thick-skinned!!!Trust me Sarah, you like much of the commentators are trying to debate a topic in which you have zero knowledge. I've been there done that, and equal rights aside, I don't think that some men would even want to endure those conditions I mentioned. No offense to you, I respect your stance on this topic, but your idea of equal rights for women serving in combat is sincere, but quite naïve.

@jmccullough; Actually Sarah is the one taking on everyone who is indifferent about women serving on the frontlines! I would surely like to have women with her tenacity, and your perseverance serve in the military protecting our country!! LOL :-) Just don't get caught by enemy combatants!!!

Having been there, done that, seen females compete and complete the tasks, I'll weigh in on this one.
Females can do the same things as a male soldier can do. However, over the run of time, the toll it takes on the body is much more severe than on a male. I'm not saying you can't do it, emotionally or not, I've seen females just as tough as a male and some much stronger mentally. That fact is, that the majority of
females don't want, don't care, don't need the “Ho Ah” that most all males desire. My favorite female Drill Sergeant wished for all the opportunities that men have. I encouraged her to try and PT’d, ran long distances, and rucked with her. Years later I saw her at the Sergeant Majors Academy (and yes she was
selected for CSM), and just like me, she was wearing knee and ankle braces – thanks to going out there and doing it. Not as much as I did, yet much more than the average male did. She was/is an exceptional person and did things that other females couldn’t do, or even desired to do, just as I did things other
males couldn’t do or desired to do. To those that want to, I say go for it, yet remember, you’ll be just like me and her. At the end of your career/tour of duty, you’ll be standing there in braces just like us. But, you’ll be proud of what you accomplished – THAT’S ALL THAT MATTERS!

Lee,

Thank you for the compliments. All options are on the table. I'm fascinated by the ambiguity of legality here, and weighing the rights of women with the necessary competence levels. Mixed in with psychology of gender, and well I'm a nerd in nerd paradise, lol.

I also strive for challanges to take on, so perhaps we'll see.

And don't worry, I pity the enemy combatant that comes after me, I look like a cherub and live in Detroit, that toughens you up, real quick, lol. JUST JOKING, DON'T EVERYBODY FREAK OUT ABOUT HOW "I DON'T KNOW"!

I am humored by this debate because, in truth, direct combat jobs remain male only. Although the liberal press tries to downplay that, that is the opposite side of the coin. The military knows that the vast majority of women cannot meat the physical standards of ground combat. It was mentioned above but it has been tested before, if you cannot believe your own eyes (just look at the sports world.) I mean DUH! Check out this admission from Military Personnel:

"At an afternoon news conference, reporters immediately pressed officials to explain why Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta opted to continue the ban.

Vee Penrod, deputy undersecretary for military personnel policy, said it is because the majority of women cannot meet the physical standards for Army infantry units."

I was a US ARMY WAC and a "MAN ARMY" the day I enter into my permantly duty station and every other military base I was assigned to became a battle zone. I was isolated and physically and mentally abuse by these male soldiers of all ranks. Sexual Assualt, Harassment and Rape were a way of life for me and other female soldiers.

There was no where to escape because the chain of command were all males!

In my time frame I was a 76Y30 Unit Armor Supply Speciliast with many other military MOS under my belt I may not have been assigned to any of these Combat Units back then, But the males NCO's and Offices appointed over me had me work in these isolated Battlion of all males to get their Unit Supply and Arms Room in order to past all types of inspections.

No matter where they sent me I did a out standing job got great reviews and awards from these Combats Units but I didn't leave these Units without "Combat Scar"!

Yo know GOD made no perfect HUMAN but the US Army is Chuck full of them because every soliders above the Ranks of E-5 that got a 125 on any of their NCOER"S or OFFICER'S Evaluation Report with a perfect score.

But these were the same Male Soldiers that abuse their Female Soldiers repeatly over the years!

I've seen the frontlines of War the in and out of Combat!

All Ranks of Female Soldiers that were Vicitim's and now are Survived of their military career in the US ARMY still live with their Comabt Experiences!

d today I'm still that Vicitim and also that have been in Combat and still survived

AND? Equal rights Equal risk

not a chance they will be.

Rape is not exclusive to either pow's or women.

drjakle, you are 100% correct, just as the the physical standards were changed of women in law enforcement, fire department, Navy, many factories, etc.

They shouldn't change the physical requirements. Women are less strong on average, but those who have the strength shouldn't be denied opportunities.

The current pt standards are easier for women, what this means is the pt standards will be the same. Understanding the English language is also a requirement of military service in this country.

G.I. Joe didn't have genitalia.

amen brother....this place has gone off the deep end as far as reality is concerned

The key is that you have to wait for the action to start. I really don't see how "boom, headshot" won't work with a girl behind the gun.

Obviously there's more to being a soldier than just shooting, and soldiers need to be strong enough, but if a girl happens to be strong (say 1/10) I don't see why she should be denied the opportunity to fight.

yes, there is more to combat than shooting...there is more to combat than being strong....death is what you find there and even the best will die...why make the chances of someone getting killed more than they have to be....just to be PC?...just to show it can be done?....most of you have never seen the way "chance" moves in combat....it's not a good place to be unless you are the strongest, meanest, merciless professional killers on the field...i think people watch too many movies or something...we need the best we can get and if a woman is the best we can get, we need to bring back the draft...

i like the boom headshot thing....its not really like target practice....maybe sometimes but not usually..lol

Jay, I think a lot of people may not like some of comments for obvious reasons, but I have to give it to you and any other military member who have put their lives at risk on the battlefield. I know that unless one has walked that walk, they will NEVER know what it is like to be involved in actual combat. It is often easier to talk about things than actually execute them, the frontline is serious business, make no mistake of that people.

yea they call them 2-10 2- in the states they are a 2 in Iraq they become a 10 and then back to a 2

If you read the article, women are put at risk as ancillary to battalions. They too are in a combat zone and have died or become injured. Just saying they should get combat pay while serving in a war zone.

Great post!...and may I say from experience, females have special needs that must be met, or they become (INOP) In the field[TRNG] personal hygiene challenges are met most of the time, because special (trips to the rear) for shower runs are common. In combat areas where all units are foward on a constant push, or race to see who can get north first [anyone remember this?] females continue to have the same needs and there are no showers. Supplies are always limited, so who comes up short? This is one very disgusting and demoralizing truth that CAN'T be ignored with sweat running down your body and pouring out of your boots as the thread on every piece of your uniform rots you wish you had that water to wash with and drink, but it's history, those are the facts, I was there. Esentially, you will not get the same bang for your buck as a tax payer putting females in harms way. (btw) look at the all female groups that patrol the Iraq/Iran border areas >.<

If we're going to have this discussion, can we keep it based in actual facts and not stereotypes.

Fact: Yes, we are, in general, physically weaker

Not A Fact: Anything in our psychological makeup is any less capable than a man.

Let's hash this out and balance equality and safety/capability by weighing the facts. The only FACT that could hinder equal opportunity in the military for women is physicality. That's why it needs to be measure on an individual basis, with one set of standards, those being the standards in currently in place for men.

Fact: Females have special needs that must be met in order to sustain operations
tempo.

Fact: Females tend to get pregnant before, or while deployed, males do not.

Fact: Psychological makeup is dependent on monthly cycle and is not beneficial to
unit morale.

Fact: Females are physically weaker and generally more likely to take away from the
mission if utilized in a manner that would lean heavily on crude physical labor.
[Digging Fighting Positions, Changing Tires on Tactical Victors,exc]

Fact: Females generally can't perform at the same level as males in combatives.

Fact: Female service members presence in Combat Units, or attached to Combat Units, impact the mission effort and unit effectiveness overall with compromises.

well said

Okay, wow, our psychological makeup has NOTHING to do with our menstrual cycle. That is just complete ignorance on your part.

I'll give you some insight into females. PMS, isn't a debilitating disease except in some women who have PMDD. The menstrual cycle can also be completely controlled or cut off through different forms of BC. This is no different than the male soldiers who have to take a pill for some health reason. It can even be administered as a twice yearly shot.

Nor does going without a shower kill us. As gross as the concept may be to me personally, women won't die from this. Take a look at the third world.

In addition to all of that, when women drop below a certain body fat percentage, which to meet the physical requirements of combat, they would most likely need to do, the cycle ceases all together, and only restarts after fat levels rise again.

The majority of men can't meet the physical requirements, yet all are offered the opportunity to try. Men of different races have different general physicality, some races tend to be larger than others, yet all are offered the chance to try.

Saying that women in combat would effect the psychosis of men, or that men would have issues with their "protective" instincts, is similar to the reasoningcertain sects of fundamentalist Muslims compell the burka. "Well, men can't control their sexual impulses, so let's put the burden of those impulses on the women." Any psychological issues men have towards women in combat, should be placed on the shoulders of the men, not used as reasoning to ban women.

If a women meets the same physical standards as a man, than you have no basis for saying she would be less effective. It's cut and dry, if she can do it, she can do it. Those standards are all you have to judge men by, before believing they would be effective in combat, ergo if those standards are enough to judge men, they're enough to judge women.

Like I said before, if a girl wants to fight and meets all the requirements, so be it. For every 9 guys there might only be 1 girl, but that 1 girl should not be denied any opportunities.

Sarah,

Again your ignorance of the Military, its requirement, physical standards (male and Female, they are different), etc. is glaringly obvious. I know plenty of women who ARE debilitated by PMS or "their cycle" every month. Just because YOU aren't, doesn't make it a FACT for every women. Just FYI, the Body Fat Standards for women in the Military is Max 33%, no where near the 6% required to stop the menstrual cycle.

Your statement that: "The majority of men can't meet the physical requirements, yet all are offered the opportunity to try" is completely false. The "General" physical fitness standards FOR MEN, which every male recruit is required to meet before leaving basic training, qualify them for almost every MOS/Rate. Since PFS for women are much lower, this isn't true for women. Now if you want to volunteer for some Special Operations assignments like SEALS, EOD, Ranger, SARS, SS, RECON, then even the candidates must meet higher PFSs than average "grunt" before they are even allowed to start training. It is the soldier's/sailor's responsibility to get himself to that level. For example, in Navy SEALS, over 90% of the MEN that start Basic Underwater Training (BUDS) washout, i.e. quit or fail before completing those first few weeks of training. These Men are in the best physical shape possible and 90% don't make the cut. Do you really think a women is going to make it?? Look at Sports. Any sport. Name one where the best women's time, distance, whatever, beats the best man's time, distance, etc. Running? NO. Biking? NO. Swimming? NO. ...

Sarah, those are just the facts. And lastly your statement that: "Saying that women in combat would effect the psychosis of men, or that men would have issues with their "protective" instincts, is similar to the reasoning certain sects of fundamentalist Muslims compel the burka" is also FALSE. There are actually two studies that prove it. One was done by the Israelis and the other by the Russians. The Russian study used information from co-ed combat units in WWII. In both studies they found that casualties on "Co-ed" units were 25% to 50% HIGHER than those of All Male units. It was also found that many of these additional casualties were the results of male members trying to "protect" or "save" female unit members from situations were a male soldier would have been abandoned.

You keep mentioning these studies, please give me a link so I can check them out. They don't mean much when you simply post their generalities.

You seem awful closed minded and intent on keeping females out, but you don't seem to have a good answer as to why, if they meet the male standards, they should be kept out.

if i were drafted into the military, an i saw fellow troop in trouble, i would leave him there. i would not risk my life for his.

Javier your a Coward in the military you leave NO one behind if i saw you run in trouble i would shoot you for desertion

javier you shouldn't worry about being drafted,. you need to be a legal to prtect the rights you are abusing with your free liberal education. hope it's you i read about in the next drive by shooting after a drug deal goes wrong

true words bs...

javier...you probably wouldnt make it out of the field if i saw you do it...lol

I agree totally with you on the contributions. Funny though, I think women if physically able could handle the frontlines. What is unimaginable to me is a man having the mental fortitude to undergo childbirth.

Like your comment though.

javier haven't they tought you that there is no draft. the liberal freaks made sure thye didn't have to fight for the freedoms they enjoy. i think if you don't want to protect your freedoms you should go to another country, maybe even get a participation award for showing up at their border. you sound like a panzie and your are in cali. i am wondering though were you born in this country or did you just show up for the free stuff?? either way you're FREE to laeve anytime you want.

"I bet"?...really? Well, what exactly are you willing to put up on that bet? Your life or mine? From the comfort of the living room, it's easy for you to sit there and harf out your opinion but, unless you've actually been there...shut it because you have know idea of what you speak! It's a long way from the same argument blacks-vs-women and you know it. I've known and served with plenty of female soldiers over the years and I can tell you that not one of them has ever said, "Gee, I wish I was able to get "out there" with you!" This is pure political tripe labeled as equality without any regard for reality. You have NO IDEA at all what it's like on a battlefield and, I can assure you, you don't want to. A soldiers ability to survive is based on his own skills and the skills of those around him. Snap back into the world of reality while I tell you that there is a world of strong and intelligent women out there that I have a ton or respect for but, there isn't one of them that I'd want to see in some of the places I've been! It's a perfect combination of physical and mental challenges that equate to a living hell that have broken hundreds of seemingly strong men right before my eyes. I can't even imagine, even the "hardest" of women in that position. Unit cohesion is already taking a hit with the repeal of the DADT, let's not further destroy what's left of our military pushing silly equality issues where they don't belong. Your bet is a loser...for morale, unit strength and cohesion, and the overall preparedness of our military.

mtkirinyaga,

Actually women HAVE been in combat, just ask the Russians and Israelis how it worked out. Fighter pilots? OK. Infantry/tanks/etc. not so good.