When do they start to register for the draft. I mean if you want equality you gotta have it all don't you?

It's a volunteer military, draft went away years ago

Males when they turn 18 still have to register for the draft! It is still in force in case of another world war type scenario when we may need millions of troops...do the girls get a pass on this now?

Women are not required by law to register for selective service. The draft may not have been used, but, it hasn't gone away.

No more of this volunteer rubbish and no more exemptions and no more excuses such as children and no more special advantages. We are all equal in the fullest sense of the word. Will the draft return--of course it will because it is the most economical way to raise a military in times of emergencies, which will always happen no matter what you might wish.l

I support women in combat roles, but to be equal, women should now be required to register for selective service as well.

Everyone of these military Bull Dikes could smack down more than 50% of the men on the combat line. Everyone thinks it but yes I said it. Let them go get some and do their job.......If I were the enemy I would be afraid.

If the women can do all the things required of them, I have no problem with it. If their standards are lowered, or they cant carry a 250lb guy, then they dont belong on the front lines. Equal rights are important between genders, races, etc, equal results are impossible and damaging when mandated.

Your an idiot. You wouldnt know combat if it came up and bit you on the ass. The enemy is laughing their heads off. They cant believe that Americans could be so stupid.

Women are not warriors, look at Private Lynch. She got scared and dropped her rifle without ever firing it. The military eager to put women in combat covered up the truth and tried to make her the poster girl of combat. To her credit she came out and told the truth. Needless to say the pro feminist media wasnt so eager to spread that news.

villain, you still have to register for selective service. Then if the govt gets in trouble and needs to re- institute the draft they can draft you immediately. If you haven't registered then you are a true "villain" since you will have ignored the law; unless of course you are a woman.

It's not equal. It is not right and it is not moral. This administration will do anything to weaken this nation and appease a small majority of fools.

“If they can meet the qualifications for the job,” he said, “then they should have the right to serve.”

I think that most Americans would agree with that, but perhaps it should be voluntary on the part of the women because if they are captured, they will likely be gang-raped by a ruthless enemy who could care less about the Geneva Convention.

But then it would amount to 'gender discrimination' wouldn't it, since men in the military are not allowed to 'opt out' of combat roles when they enlist.

No easy solutions.

Hello folks, it's a sad day that women will be lowering themselves to being cold calculated murderers like many young men have been forced to do. There is no honor in killing men, women and children for the Oil, Banking and Corporate cartels. If you think this is some kind of victory for women, it's not! It's a sad sad day!

It needs to be mandatory for women to register for the draft, males cannot get many benefits, i. e. financial aid for college if they do not register, this is total discimination and needs to be challenged in court if women are not made to register for the draft. You want it well you got it , but need to take it and the whole pot.

it is a sad day, i know the enemy is loving this. but this is america, a country of freaks, hell half of the women population nowadays is gay so go for it. this country sucks

As a vet, I have no problems with women being in the foxhole with me. My only problem is, she needs to be able to carry me out of that foxhole if I were injured. I'd do it for any man or woman, and I'd expect the same courtesy out of my "Foxhole Buddy". Equality for all!

You are a fool. Show me a woman who says she kicked a man's arse, and I'll show you a man who went easy on her because she is a woman. I work in a federal prison complex. We have a female section and male section. They both have weights and recreation as well as weight lifting competitions. It's essentially ALL they DO and they get great at it.

Out of 500 MALE inmates in competition:

Over 220 could bench press over 400lbs

Over 300 could do 10 pullups or more/ 100 could do 20 or more

Every single male inmate could do 50 pushups or more/ over 100 was the record for men.

Every single male inmate completed the 2 miles run in less than 16 minutes with a best of 12 minutes for the 2 mile run and an average of 14 minutes 45 seconds.

Out of 500 FEMALES in competition:

Only 1 could bench press over 200 lbs. The rest were behind her by 25lbs or more.

Only 20 could do any pull-ups, NONE could do over 10.

Not one female could do 50 mens pushups and 38 was the record for females

Not ONE female did her two mile run in less than 16 minutes. The best time was a little over 17 minutes.

**Fitness in a prison is major competition. It's all they have to do. These numbers are great for any athlete and the females were so far behind it was NO competition comparitively speaking**

Another point. When I was in the militray from 1995-2008...we had 2 females who qualified expert for firearms training. I now work for the Federal Bureau of Prisons and we have only 5 female staff out of 150 who qualify "expert" to be assigned to the bus crew.

Im just saying.

@IXLR8

"Let them go get some"

Exactly what are you talking about? My nephew has a video game where some idiot game designer shows these children shooting men, women and children with the kids shooting and yelling "get some", "get some". Is that what you are referring too? If so, you must be still be in Junior High!

You poor sad sacks that are wining about the competition women might give you in the military should take your stones down off of that crystal pedestal you are keeping them on and act like the men you claim to be.

Women know they could be raped and they aren’t crying about it half as much as you are so try to be half as brave as they are.

As for carrying a 250 lb soldier, you don’t carry a 250 lb soldier you drag them especially when bullets are flying and you sure enough don’t try to carry their gear as well.

I have never heard from so many sniveling children trying to pretend that they are big men by cutting down somebody else. Pathetic!

I think that most Americans would agree with that, but perhaps it should be voluntary on the part of the women because if they are captured, they will likely be gang-raped by a ruthless enemy who could care less about the Geneva Convention.

Roy, just because a woman could be raped she shoudn't be required to register for the draft but only volunteer. Then by that reasoning, men shouldn't be required to register either and should only volunteer becasue we could be castrated by an enemy that could care less about the Geneva convention, i.e. the Japs and Germans during WWII, the Viet Cong, NVA in Vietnam.

Sorry, but your reasoning is flawed here.

I think it is time for mandatory service for all. When you turn 18 if you do not go to college you must serve 3 years active, 4 years active reserve and 6 years inactive reserve. If you go to college it starts after college. It is time every American is forced to serve their nation in the military, including the rich and the politically connected and especially politicians kids. I guarantee you the president would think twice about starting a war if his kids were likely to get sent into the war.. It will also make a bunch of kids better kids when they are required to make sacrifices!

Equal means equal all the way. I also think it is time that men quit getting their heads shaved, unless women are going to get theirs as well. Keep the standards as they are do not lower them or you just destroyed the military, unfortunately the standards for spec ops will get lowered because the women groups will complain that they cannot make it and it is not fair. There goes our spec ops units!!!!

As a vet, I agree. We have the right to serve in combat (actually, we do now) but officially ... under these conditions.

1. We meet the same physical standards. ALL military jobs should have set physical/mental standards (these could and should differ somewhat depending upon the job).

2. We use the appropriate medication to regulate menstrual cycles/pregnancy.

3. We register for the draft. On this one, I actually think all Americans should do so .. and we should look into a civil service alternative. Military and/or civil service could be "exchanged" for post secondary education (much like the military does now with the GI bill).

for 13 years? You're deluded. By the time a person finished military service the college education would have been lost because it wasn't being applied. 7 years max for those elite enough to actually go to college the first time.

Roy Wilson wrote "it should be voluntary on the part of the women because if they are captured, they will likely be gang-raped by a ruthless enemy"

Why should be be concerned with the torture of a female soldier than the torture of a male soldier? Is a female life worth more?

I agree with Garry and Beth I have no problems with it so long as they meet the same standerds expected of the men.I also believe they should have to register for the draft, and shave thier heads like the men.I also believe required service at 18 years old for all Americans rich and poor alike.Although I think six years total service is sufficiant.Yes politician's wouldn't be so eager for war if they had kids in service.

Ian, sexual torture trumps physical torture. Get a basic psychological education please. 101 should suffice.

So M.A.S.H.'s Klinger is now legit as a GI in a dress?

Translation: Not enough men are volunteering. Everyone has been watching these stupid wars and see the involuntary retentions. Rifle carriers pull 15 month tours, come home for 9 months and get redeployed for 12 months (by declaration) then held an extra 3 months when its time to come home again. This happens till they finally step on a mine. Fathers, Mothers, uncles and advisers are telling 17 and 18 years olds to try something else. Generation ago a young guy could enlist, more got non-combat arms assignments than got combat assignments and they could learn skills. Mechanics, electronics (computers, radar, commo), welding, driving, supply management, food service (including culinary schools) all kinds of stuff. Cheney had all this privatised at many times the cost to the DOD budget. So the loss of skilled occupation training coupled with the involuntary retention for combat and the adults back home are telling the young guys to forget about it. So, lets give the women a try, cause we need some warm bodies cause our leaders are still trying to police the world.

“...the responsibility of every citizen to protect the nation.”

So what's with the gun ban then? Do they want people to throw rocks at the enemy?

Key 2 joy. Ignorance knows no limits with you does it?

Women already could serve. This is mainly about some officer's promotion.

garrie...(#1.21)..." I think it is time for mandatory service for all. When you turn 18 if you do not go to college "

I'll do you one better......Almost no one is mature enough to go to college at age 18....Nothing but a big party away from Mommy & Daddy for most....Spring Break is the first thing the majority plan when they get to college.

Institute the 13th. grade.....1 year for Basic Training and Real World Education Classes...Males and Females....and I bet the instances of assaults on women in college would drop like a rock too....

Getmadstaymad

Women are not warriors, look at Private Lynch. She got scared and dropped her rifle without ever firing it. The military eager to put women in combat covered up the truth and tried to make her the poster girl of combat. To her credit she came out and told the truth. Needless to say the pro feminist media wasnt so eager to spread that news.

So.. you want to restrict women based on your beliefs and 'one' stretch of an example? Umm no. Women have every right to serve in a combat role. We are a republic and this is 2012, not 1912.

ROY WILSON-336103

I think that most Americans would agree with that, but perhaps it should be voluntary on the part of the women because if they are captured, they will likely be gang-raped by a ruthless enemy who could care less about the Geneva Convention.

Women and men are already ganged raped without serving combat role. Women and Men both know the dangers of serving in the United States Military in a combat role.

P.S. The GOP love to ignore rape of women in the military, so this is one more thing they could ignore as well.

Most of you posters still don't get it !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Look at what combat does to a man. Most men do not talk about what they did or saw. Combats are a brethren unto themselves ( I am proud and honored to be one of them ). Women are different by nature or creator made them that way. What the sights, sounds , smells and fear in combat will do to them I do not know. I do know that it is an experience that forever changes your life and out look on life. The mental pressure on a combat shoulder is immense and takes a heavy toll on all who have fought. Will they be able to take their best friend next to them being blown away ?? Will they be able to stand up under the why them and not me question ??? The mental strain of combat is far greater than the physical one. Can they handle it ?? It has brought many a man to his knees !!!

But what do I know ?? I am still living with myself after a year on line in NAM . The hangover over from that lasts a life time and only the strong survive. Best of luck ladies, but I wish you would not do it, for your own sake. It is a mind blower and you will forever never be the same.

bob

"Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, the secretary vowed that the decision would not compromise military readiness and pledged that the armed forces would not lower standards for service, such as for physical fitness."

Of course they wont lower the standards ... the female physical standards are already lower. Females dont do pull ups, and they have much more time to complete the run. Why would they need to lower the standards?

Leon Panetta states " “the responsibility of every citizen to protect the nation.” - Well , I guess that it should be every females responsibility to sign up for selective service.

KEY ...........??????????????????????????????????????????????

Its confirmed then now women will have to cut their hair to regulation, take all the training, be court marshaled for getting their Government property body knocked up, die with their counterparts, wait all those things are un becoming a woman.

I know that in order to reduce the Human population on the planet we need a big war that kills allot of people and for it to be effective its the female that they will be wanting to reduce because it does no good to only kill the males after one generation the females will undo the damage/good depending on how you look at it and the population will be back to where it would have been anyways, personally I do not like what I am seeing, your little girl is playing with her dolls today and being thrown out of a helicopter in the middle of a war in ten years time, instead of planing that Fairytalewedding you will be attending her funeral, way to go Obama will your daughters serve? do you liberals even have a clue as to what you are doing, you wont be happy till you ruin everything for everyone will you, what if women want to be women and not soldiers, raise babies instead of kill people, all this is is a way to eliminate the less advantaged females and thin the herd. again the American people are being conned, the stage is being set for everyone except the privileged to serve and die so the rich can have it all. I don't see this as a good thing for all women, in fact its down right evil, now you want our daughters as well as our sons, screw you Panetta, just because a couple of psycho's want it doesn'tmean its good for everyone. just how in the hell is a 98lb girl going to carry a 190 lb man to the aid station, or engage in hand to hand with same. is this Panetta guy a yes man to King Obama or what, who else can be enslaved. women used to be exempt they had the right not to serve that just changed its gone the direction of the 5th amendment, and will be followed by the 1st amendment, then the 2ndamendment, then the rest of your rights, bad government bad, bad, bad! first is half gone now everything has to be Politically correct............! Now when does the eradication of a generation begin? two years? more, less whats the rest of the plan.this has gone beyond a small percentage of women that want to serve its now going to effect all women.

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! this is absolutely HORRIBLE!

one of the worst things I have ever heard!

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Sounds like a desperate attempt to recruit under the banner of "gender equality" since no one is buying the propaganda that we need more wars.

If "VALOR" is so great then why don't the rich and the politicians kids go to war? I know there are a few that sign up but not many.

Old rich men start wars and young and poor people get killed in wars!

I don't have a problem with women being on the front lines if you keep the sexes separated. If not you'll have chaos. As many have pointed out a female soldier, in the best of shape would have a very difficult, if not impossible time of carrying an injured male soldier to safety. That and the sexual relations thing. You have non-combat females on naval ships getting pregnant all the time.

This is really a moot issue. Women serve actively in combat roles in many of the developed countries around the world, and have for years. In Israel, nearly all young men and women serve in the armed forces. None of those countries have experienced major problems in integrating women into combat roles, or experienced degraded unit cohesion.

Perhaps - the President's daughters will get an opportunity to serve on the front lines in combat - much like Diana and Charles son Harry did.

That would be a very strong statement of Mr. Obama's support for women in combat!

This is a very poor decision driven by politics rather than a real practical evaluation of the issue. Panetta waited until he was ready to depart to make this decision so that he could score the political points of doing so without having to deal with the real world ramifications of the decision. Women simply are not cut out to be in combat roles. There are very few women who would be capable of dragging a typical male soldier in full combat gear to safety if they are injured. This decision will not only result in women getting killed, it is going to up the body count for the men as well. There will be male soldiers who will die because some female was incapable of getting them to safety after they get hit. In addition, there are physiological differences between men and women that make this a bad decision. A woman's physiology does not provide her with the same stamina that men have. This is a very important issue. Everyone in combat needs to be able to carry their share of the load and women just are not built to handle a 15 or 20 mile forced march carrying 90 to 100 pounds of gear with them on their backs in addition to the weight of their body armor, and other items that might need to be carried like a mortar tube, etc. There are also medical reasons why women should not be in combat. Men in combat can go for several days at a time without access to an kind of facilities, and definitely not running water to clean up. Women have certain hygiene needs that simply are not compatible with being stuck in the same clothes with no ability to wash up for days at a time. A woman at that time of the month will end up with a major, life threatening infection if they are not able to clean up on a regular basis. Women can call me a sexist pig all they want, but this is a biological reality that no amount of feminist bluster can change. Are we going to start allowing women to stay behind on an operation and have a unit go out short handed because it is that time of the month and the women need to stay where they have access to running water. On top of that, I do not think that the American public is prepared to deal with the repeated stories of women soldiers being captured and repeatedly gang raped by the enemy. Particularly when dealing with an Islamic enemy this is a problem. Their views women are such that they would feel completely justified in raping them, since they do not see them as equals and see them being soldiers as being against their religious societal rules and therefor fair game for abuse. This is a very poor decision that is going to cause major problems. Hopefully the incoming Secretary of Defense will realize the stupidity of Panetta's decision and reverse it.

Most of you posting don't know squat !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The horrors of combat last a life time. Try living with memories of fallen comrades. Blown up by RPG's. burned alive in chopper crashes, body parts lying around from being blown up on impact. The stench of death all around you. No this is no place for a woman, nor man for that matter. Yet will still go to war. Something is very wrong here. But I'll be damned if I know what, better yet why we do it.

Ian Blokesworth-2490368 "Why should be be concerned with the torture of a female soldier than the torture of a male soldier? Is a female life worth more?"

What I'm getting from these posts is that women should be able to do anything a man does, so long as she's 'qualified', so then I guess we should not make any special provisions to protect them.

If we reinstate the draft during a crisis, then women should have an equal responsibility to serve, with no exceptions, but we then need to make sure that female soldiers are just as likely to serve in front-line combat positions as male soldiers.

Personally, I've been on the Camp Pendleton base in California and have seen the rigorous basic training in process, and the few female trainees were always at the back end of the pack, so pretending that they are just as physically 'capable' is an illusion. If we truly do not make 'exceptions' for their physical limitations, I suspect that the vast majority of female recruits would not pass the training.

@DrAlchemy - Is it ignorance or sarcasm that he's using in this case? Given how he wrote his words, I'd lean towards the latter. That said, the joke's still not funny.

@JS - Politics?! Seriously? There are women who want to serve but never given the chance because of misogynist arseholes like yourself preventing them from doing so. The only reason women never show this kind of dedication is because how badly you Southern HonkyTonks stigmatize them to be good for nothing but cooking, cleaning and sex. If you didn't degrade them so, I bet the only difference between a man and a woman in a fight is who could last longer.

I think it's about time we stop treating women as objects, or we're liable to become just like Al Qaeda and the Taliban ourselves!

America's finest are there to protect the israeli gas pipeline going to india so little darling israel can make its shekels at US expense, AS USUAL. Send little jason who is partying in tel aviv to go and protect their gas pipeline instead of our fine young Men and Women. PB is NOT BSing you; yahoo or google info on this notorious israeli natural gas pipeline to sell gas to india. Get OUR Fine Sons and Daughters Home.

Are Obama's daughters going to serve?

Are Obama's daughters going to serve?

Certainly not! They are too good to serve.

The better question is will Obama make his daughters and the rest of the women demanding equality register with the Selective Service when they reach 18 years of age? I mean if they are demanding true equality.....

@Zath - Will they be old enough by the time he gets out, though? And I think they'd have the common sense to do so if it were made a mandate right this moment (not saying they're old enough to do so now, but they're law abiding citizens too, y'know).

Personally, I've been on the Camp Pendleton base in California and have seen the rigorous basic training in process, and the few female trainees were always at the back end of the pack, so pretending that they are just as physically 'capable' is an illusion. If we truly do not make 'exceptions' for their physical limitations, I suspect that the vast majority of female recruits would not pass the training.

Exactly, so when the military makes the APFT requirements for women as difficult as the men's requirements and they can pass them, then they can serve on the front lines equally. Until then this is just a bullsh*t political correctness exercise that will fail.

So as I understand it the draft is not used but has not gone away but women do not have to register for selective service as do their male counterparts. I would think 99% of the women would be disqualified for selective service due to the fact that they are mothers and many with four or more children while holding a part time job in order to put food on the table.

Firstly I have to say that I do not belittle the women that are serving in our Armed Forces, as they do all of us a great service by there service in our military, I can only honor that service by saying Thank You!!These are the requirements for the Marine Physical Fitness Test:

Marine Corps PFTs are scored the following way for males:

• Pull-ups: Each complete pull-up is worth 5 points up to a maximum of 100 points (20 pull-ups). Additional pull-ups beyond 20 are not counted and do not add to the score.
• Crunches: Each completed crunch is worth 1 point up to a maximum of 100 points. Any crunches completed after the two-minute time limit are not counted and do not add to the score.
• Three mile run: A perfect score of 100 points is achieved by completing the run in less than 18 minutes. One point is deducted from the score for each additional ten seconds that it takes to complete the run. Completing the run in less than 18 minutes does not add to the score.

Marine Corps PFTs are scored the following way for females:

• Flex-arm hang: The maximum score of 100 points is achieved when the recruit maintains the flex-arm hang for 70 seconds. The clock is stopped when the recruit drops off the bar or the arms become fully extended. The recruit's chin at no time is allowed to touch the bar. The score is calculated by subtracting the actual hang time in seconds from the maximum hang time (70 seconds) and deducting two points for each second of difference. It is important to note, however, that the flex-arm hang will no longer be a part of the Marine Corps PFT as of January 1, 2014 (see ALMAR 046/12).
• Crunches: Each completed crunch is worth 1 point up to a maximum of 100 points. Any crunches completed after the two-minute time limit are not counted and do not add to the score. (Note: This is the only event that is scored identically to the male event.)
• Three mile run: A perfect score of 100 points is achieved by completing the run in less than 21 minutes. One point is deducted from the score for each additional ten seconds that it takes to complete the run. Completing the run in less than 21 minutes does not add to the score. ****You can see the differences, in requirements and type of exercises.**** Look at this page: usarmybasic.com/army-physical-fitness/apft-standards and you will see the different APFT standards listed for men and women. Here are some examples: if you are male between 17-21 you must do 71 push-ups to get 100 points, and if you are female, same ages, you need to do 42 push-ups to get 100 points! Women have to do 2 more sit ups than men in comparable age group 22 -26 yrs old 80 vs 78 to receive 100 points. Running the 2 mile men have 13 minutes to get their 100 points in the 22- 26 age group. Women running have15.36 minutes to get 100 points in the 22-26 year age group. There are different standards for the different genders, and there must be a reason for this discrepancy. They are not held to the same physical standards,which means that they would not be able to do the same jobs as the men are having to be capable of! I am sure that there are some women that are physically capable, and that should be the standard for all combatants,equally able! The other point that I read is that they have just taken another step closer to hand to hand combat positions but are still not there yet! They are to be at the Brigade level, which means they are not allowed in combat squads, combat platoons, or combat companies!!! At brigade level I can only assume that they are in a combat support role, although I am not saying that they are totally safe from combat as they are in a combat zone, just that they are still not in direct combat...

I agree!!

In fact we should do away with all female sports as well and just have the best athletes compete. No more womens, this or mens that. Just the 10 fastest people in the world running the 100 in the olympics.Given that we are equal, there is no reason to divide them any longer!!

Right??

Joan of Arc lead men into battle. Boudicca lead battles to defeat the ROmans. Augustina de Aragon pushed the French out of Spain. Tomeo Gozen, female samurai warrior, refused to commit suicide as she was instructed to avoid capture and was praised as a warrior worth a thousand. Nurses were on the battlefield during battle in many wars. I think we are a misogynic society and this is one step toward pulling ourselves above it. Granted the women that meet all of the criteria to be there and want to be there will be the rare one, but no one should step on that.

Shows how stupid people are:

Squire-1413747

So as I understand it the draft is not used but has not gone away but women do not have to register for selective service as do their male counterparts. I would think 99% of the women would be disqualified for selective service due to the fact that they are mothers and many with four or more children while holding a part time job in order to put food on the table.

Selective service doesn't care how many kids you have, your parental status, or if you have a job or not...

Since women forced their way into combat rolls, then it's time to RAISE the female minimum qualification for physical readyness up to the minimum MALE requirements. Futhermore, women should now have to adhear to the male grooming standards.

U want to be a man, then you'll be treated like a man...

His older daughter will be 18 before he's out of office..

Squire...99% of the women at 18 would be disqualified because they wold have 4 children and holding afull time job?

at 18?

When we allowed women in the military we made different standards WE STILL HAVE TODAY for them. Aides in training, less work, and less skills required required than their male counterpart. Unfair and unequal? HELL YES. So if we want to be equal let the military show it instead of pampering. The talk NEVER HAS matched the walk.

Liberals and feminists are making of the Armed forces a joke, since woman start taking more combat roles , our armed forces are lowering the bar to accommodate woman, because they can't train equal to men, there are a few woman where the nature made a mistake, making them more like a man, but I can count them with my fingers , now if those quasi men want to be par of special forces must to be careful, because there is no return, once they are capture by the enemy will be happy to have some woman to rape. What if in an scenario a woman mother of 3 child's, is capture and the terrorist demand exchange of prisoners , should the government start making deals to save the life of the mother-soldier?. Man are the only ones who can be part of special forces that is not the place for woman. This is not about equality , this is ignore the science, men and woman are not equal.

@ Tom-1768340

How bout we just ban all Americans from combat. If we do that, we have true equality and no one coming home in coffins or without limbs.

Spoken like a true moron. You wouldn't be here if it wasn't for the honorable and brave that serve our country. You clearly are one of the fanny-pack wearing progressive libs that thinks freedom and liberty comes free. Well, it doesn't! And thank God we still have people who are willing to stand up for freedom and liberty.

Like Israel, all able bodied citizens should have to serve their country. Maybe then we'd have a few less idiots like you that think we have what we have just because we are here. As we can see by what is going on in the world now because of the useless impotent Tyrant-in-Chief occupying our White House, taking the wussie stanch doesn't work!

Garbageman is correct... It's great that women serve the country, but if she is following my *ss into combat I want her to be on the same level physically that I am. Women want the equal treatment and equal pay grade, but not the equal standards. The passing score (60%) for push ups on the women's portion of the APFT (17-21) is 19 in two minutes... 19!?!?!? Seriously... at 42 they get a 100% which is the men's minimum.

papagigi

Joan of Arc lead men into battle.

Joan of Arc is more legend than truth,
yet she never entered the combat announce when we see him with his sword.

Agustina de Aragon never
combat against other soldiers, she was in the artillery , when she did she was
captured .

Also Boudicca is part truth part legend,
Boudicca was not part of an army she fought to defend their city unfortunately
committed suicide before being captured by the Romans

every post acknowledges we will be going to war again and again.....I hate thinking about women in body bags......women should not have to register for selective service as men do but they should be able to volunteer and be held to the SAME standards as men.....many men are washed out of the elite because they didn't meet the minimums.....women should adhere to same....any comments girls?

ireadyou, you nailed it, not enough bodies to throw into the fray

The better question is will Obama make his daughters and the rest of the women demanding equality register with the Selective Service when they reach 18 years of age? I mean if they are demanding true equality...

He can't. Women are not allowed to register

Although I personally do not care to see women in combat, those that qualify, should not be denied. I think the combat portion should be volunteer only, otherwise drafting is fine.

I have a cousin and a sister that would have been fit enough to qualify with no reduced requirements.

beth, women aren't REQUIRED to register, these azholes in govt could change that

If we were to have a major war the draft would come back no doubt, maybe O would like it if his girls got drafted into the infantry.

I have no problem with it IF the female counterpart can handle a full pack all day all night.. days on end and not get someone killed hauling her stuff when she can't keep up.....just sayin

Meanwhile republicons remind everyone they have a plan for women.....Ladies they have your backs.....with their boot firmly planted in your backside by voting against a jobs bill for vets and trying to kill healthcare for women.......etc, etc......

There is already a move in the pentagon to register women for the draft. Evidently the draft knows no gender either.

This a great decision. There can be no more fierce opponent in combat than a woman with PMS, a rifle and a bayonet (and later an attorney). Give an American woman a cell phone, and a credit card, and the enemy is toast.

To be blunt:

Is there such a thing as Sexual Chemistry while in Combat for both a Female and a Male Soldier?

The women will be tested for strength and capability before being put on the front lines of combat duty.

The women will need more Testosterone than Estrogen to fight a War!.

Yes, We Can.

.

Besides, boys are more brave when there are girls around. It's a win-win...& win.

Another of Dumbama's stupid comments. Get rid of this loser.

Its only fair that women could enter combat zone. The Muslim and Latin America use children in combat.

Mr. Obama: "It's an EQUALITY thingy."

Yep, everything in Mr. Obama's mind is EQUALITY......money, food, housing, immigration, taxation, automobiles, health care, marriage, social justice, education, ......etc.......etc.

He must have gotten his marching orders from a Post Toasties box along with his driver's license.

Hint to Mr. Obama: YOUR Progressive philosophy and agenda WILL NOT WORK !!!!!!!

nico-383340 ...(#1.70)...."beth, women aren't REQUIRED to register, these azholes in govt could change that"

Hey, I know....Make Requiring 18 yr.old girls to register with the Selective Service an amendment on FeinStein's Gun Grab Bill.....That will Guarantee its Defeat.....

President Erkle. Listen up, I dont care if these girls you want in combat could kick your ass, they cant kick mine and they will not be able to kick Al Qaida's either. Stop playing to the political correct tune and get a clue. Every one of these girls will become a high value target. You just took a person who is not a warrior and painted a target on her back. Wake up. They will be abducted, abused and sent home in a bag. Stop telling these girls can do anything they want, your just playing to their weaknesses.

Which is more important in our military... to achieve "equality", or to put the most effective fighting force possible on the battlefield?.......just a simple question from a 22 year career soldier.

Obama Ignores Deadly Risks to Women in Combat

Obama Ignores Deadly Risks to Women in Combat
By Arnold
Ahlert

It didn't take long for the Obama administration to advance a pernicious
piece of its promised radical agenda. Two days after the president laid out his
far-left vision during the inauguration, senior defense officials announced that
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta will lift the military's ban on women serving
in combat. The move overturns a 1994 provision that prohibited them from being
assigned to ground combat units. Panetta has given the various service branches
until 2016 to come up with exemptions, and/or make any arguments about what
roles should still reman closed to women. Thus, another bit of gender radicalism
has been shoved down the nation's throat through executive fiat - and this one
is sure to have deadly consequences.

It is precisely those deadly consequences - especially for servicewomen -
that are irrelevant to feminists and their enablers, who have long pushed the
idea that men and women are essentially interchangeable. Nothing could be
further from the truth, and combat is where those differences could produce
deadly results. Ground combat is arguably the most physically grueling activity
in which one can be engaged, and despite what the feminists would like Americans
to believe about equality, science says otherwise: men have almost twice the
upper-body strength as women.

This is a critically relevant consideration. According to a 2009 article in
National Defense Magazine, a soldier on a three-day mission in Afghanistan
carries approximately 130 pounds of gear, and efforts to lighten that load have
not succeeded. This is primarily due to the reality that the essentials of food,
water, and ammunition cannot be replaced with lighter items. Other equipment,
such as sensors, tripods, cold weather clothing, boots, sleeping bags,
flashlights, and protective eyewear, have all been made lighter. But the fact
remains that the average soldier is expected to carry enormous amounts of
weight, simply to better ensure his chances for survival. Furthermore, a soldier
must carry that weight even during periods of intense fighting. The overwhelming
majority of women are not capable of meeting such standards.

What is the Pentagon likely to do? In New York City, when most female
applicants to the Fire Department were unable to meet the strength requirements,
feminists filed a successful lawsuit, altering the standards so that a number of
otherwise unqualified women could pass the test. Thus it is likely the Pentagon
will pursue a similar strategy of "gender-norming" for the entire service that
is already part of the Army Physical Fitness Test. That test requires
proficiency in push-ups, sit-ups and a two-mile run. For sit-ups both genders
have the same requirements. For push-ups and the run, the grading scale for
women is easier.

Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, illuminates
the folly of pursuing such double standards. "Revised 'warrior training'
programs sound impressive, but gender-normed standards emasculate the concept by
assuring 'success' for average female trainees," she wrote in 2005, when the
Army began a surreptitious program of putting women in smaller, direct
ground-combat units. Donnelly then added the critically proper perspective to
the mix. "Soldiers know that there is no gender-norming on the battlefield," she
explains.

There is also nothing that will eliminate the natural differences between men
and women that play out in a number of other ways. Few things are more important
for enduring the rigors of combat than morale and combat unit cohesion. It is
ludicrous to believe that mixed units will be immune to the potentially
de-stabilizing effects of sexual attraction. And as night follows day, sexual
attraction leads to pregnancy. In 2009, Major General Anthony Cucolo, running
military operations in Northern Iraq, was forced to deal with the serious
downside of that reality. As a result, he initiated a policy under which troops
who got pregnant–and the men who got them pregnant–faced a court martial and
possible jail time. Cucolo issued the directive because he was losing too many
women with critical skills. "I've got a mission to do, I'm given a finite number
of soldiers with which to do it and I need every one of them," he contended.

Yet consensual sex is only part of the problem. A military report released in
January 2012 revealed a stunning 64 percent increase in violent sex crimes
within the U.S. Army since 2006. The most frequent sex crimes for 2011 included
"rape, sexual assault, and forcible sodomy." The report further noted that while
only 14 percent of the Army is comprised of women, they represent 95 percent of
all sex crime victims.

It stretches the bounds of credulity to believe that sexual tension,
regardless of the legitimate or illegitimate motivation behind it, would be
lessened under front line, life-threatening combat conditions. Nor is it
inconceivable to think that close personal relationships of a sexual nature
would make some soldiers take the kind of unnecessary risks to save a lover that
might not only endanger themselves, but their entire unit.

There is another reality that feminists and their enablers fail to
acknowledge. As it currently stands, there is little appetite demonstrated by
women themselves for serving in combat units. Army Research Institute (ARI)
surveys taken from 1993-2001 revealed that the majority of military women were
strongly opposed to combat assignments–so much so that the ARI dropped the
question from its survey the following year. Less than a month ago, a Huffington
Post article regarding interviews with "a dozen female soldiers and Marines"
revealed that they had "little interest in the toughest fighting jobs,"
contending "they'd be unable to do them." When the Marines asked women to go
through their infantry training course last year, only two women volunteered.
Both of them failed to get through it. No one volunteered for the next one. Army
Sgt. Cherry Sweat, who did a tour in Iraq installing communications equipment,
reveals a sentiment that most military women apparently share. "The job I want
to do in the military does not include combat arms," she said. "I enjoy
supporting the soldiers. The choice to join combat arms should be a personal
decision, not a required one," she added.

Lory Manning of Women's Research and Education Institute thinks women's
interest in assuming combat roles will be higher than anticipated. "If you asked
someone in 1985 about going to sea, she would have been thinking: 'Girls don't
do that and so I don't want to do that,'" Manning contended. "But when push came
to shove, they did it, they loved it." That is a ridiculous comparison. Going to
sea is hardly the same as front-line combat. Moreover, when "push comes to
shove," it is highly doubtful that there is more than a microscopic number of
soldiers who "love" being in the mortal danger that combat engenders.

Unfortunately, such realities are no match for those who champion diversity.
Putting women in combat units "reflects the reality of 21st century military
operations," said Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Sen. Carl Levin
(D-MI), in announcing his support for the program. No doubt he and others see it
as the next logical step following last year's announcement, opening 14,000
combat-related positions to female soldiers. At that time, the Pentagon still
insisted on keeping women out of direct combat roles, even as they noted they
were committed to lifting such barriers eventually. At the time, they claimed
that making such sweeping changes would be difficult in time of war. Another
factor was the lifting of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy allowing gays to
serve openly. Allowing women to serve on the front lines at the same time was
considered one big social change too many.

No longer. The new policy expands the number of military jobs available to
women from last year's 14,000 to more than 230,000 positions. Part of the
impetus for the change may have been two lawsuits filed last year challenging
the combat ban, but according to a senior military official familiar with the
discussions by the Joint Chiefs, the ultimate conclusion was that this is the
time to "maximize women's service in the military."

Writing for the Washington Post three days ago, Elaine Donnelly reiterated
her position that putting women in combat is a terrible idea, presciently noting
that "even the if the results of the Marines' research do not support
unrealistic theories of feminists who consider land combat to be just another
career opportunity, administration officials might press their egalitarian
agenda anyway." She further noted that the "Pentagon-endorsed Military
Leadership Diversity Commission (MLDC) has called for an end to women's land
combat exemptions, based on a new definition of 'diversity.'"

That egalitarian agenda, like so many other progressive agendas, may produce
an unintended consequence. The 1981 Rostker v. Goldberg Supreme Court case
exempted women from being part of the nation's Selective Service System. America
no longer drafts civilians into the military, but as Donnelly notes, the
elimination of such combat exemptions will involve civilian women registering
with Selective Service. She then makes a recommendation, not only anathema to
the Obama administration, but one that only three days later was ultimately
ignored. "Congress, which represents the American people, should not be shut out
of this decision-making process," she wrote. If the draft is re-instated, one
wonders how the American public will take to having their daughters every bit as
vulnerable as their sons to forcible conscription. A rising tide of Islamist
terror in the Middle East and now in Africa could provide the answer.

Once again, elections have consequences. Barack Obama has made it clear that
part of his progressive agenda includes forcing gender radicalism down America's
throat, absent any input from Congress. Once, the United States military was all
about projecting lethal power around the globe to protect America's interests.
Now, it is all about promoting diversity, inclusion and equality of outcome,
irrespective of military readiness and cohesion. For progressives, who have
elevated political correctness above all else–national security included–such
radical egalitarianism is cause for celebration. For Donnelly and countless
other Americans, it is anything but. "No one's injured son should have to die on
the streets of a future Fallujah because the only soldier near enough to carry
him to safety was a five-foot-two 110-pound woman," she contends.

alot of trash talk here from the "CHICKENHAWKS" or"LIMBAUGH BOMBARDIERS" types ranting in these posts...they talk alot macho bombastic hokum about being at war when they haven't worn REAL BDU's and real boots.....that were issued to them and not bought at the local Army/Navy store to look the image...as a VETERAN with daughters ...I don't want my daughters drafted I don't want them going to war either...WARS SUCKS....I lived like a million others the draft back in the early 70's , but I enlisted in the USAF since I knew I was a goner in the lottery and knew I wasn't cut out for the infantry skillsets .I was warned about what life is like in an infantry or Marine unit at the front by people who didn't BS about it or glorify it from personal experiences in WW2 , Korea & Nam..and they advised me to enlist in any service but the Army and Marines.. the Army infantry is where most of the draftee cannon fodder ended so I enlisted so as to at least have a minimal choice as to what my fate could end up being..but .I stilll ended up in Thailand at a fighter-bomber base in a ACFT maintenance squadron (FMS) working on the flightline at the end of "NAM"....not so bad duty compared to the "NAM" itself , ....but still it wasn't Kansas or fun and games where we were at either..thats my take and experience with real war not to mention many years of exercises in fake wars against the Soviet hordes coming thru the Fulda Gap or attacking are base in the UK or FOL somewhere in Europe plus 2 crisis deployments 1 to Turkey during the Iran hostage fail and to Pakistan when the Soviets went into Afghanistan in Jan 80..obviously its more experience than the aforementioned hometown cherryboy commandos , but nothing extrodinarly dangerous other than the usual risks of being on a flightline with real bombs and planes....and.my attitude toward woman in the military is if they volunteer fine as long as they meet the current standard criteria and can perform the mission satisfactorily ,in my time their were not alot of women initially , but later on their were a bit more and some of them were pretty damned good at their job and pretty to but of course some were also useless , but the same could be said for some of the guys too , but drafting women is wrong wrong so WRONG ....its another sign of our political polarisation and growing weakness as a nation if that comes about to fruition....women should be volunteer only !!!!!....funny how Vets are usually more realistic as to what life is like in the military and ones who have been to war are usually for the most part pacifist afterwards...I repeat WAR SUCKS..& .you can always tell the "big talkers' and you know when it was their turn at the plate they didn't know how to put on their manpants to answer the call to duty in any branch of service... &.they probably used to get their big sisters to fight their battles for them too...LOL...thats my thoughts towards those that never served themselves commenting here that want to draft women....and you all know who you are since you can't hide from yourselves behind the internet

I see the same old tired people on here saying the same old tired things......This doesn't surprise me.

Life,Liberty & the pursuit of happiness for all...... as long as you conform to them. No gays, Their God, No progressive politics, Their guns, and No women in ________— (Fill in the blank, it doesn't matter to them your still seen as the little woman & like June Cleaver shouldn't you be baking cookies or something).

Your mothers must be proud of the simpletons you have become, to have such respect and hold everybody in such high regard and equally I might add.

Now that I'm done with my rant....

Women in our military are already on the front lines with men, and have been for a long time. They are there to frisk females combatants, as well as many other things.

What they don't have under the old system was a way of advancing & getting the same pay grade as their male counter parts.

This is what it really comes down to, more so that the BS flying around here about front line duties, or they are not capable.

Women can endure the pain of labor.....which is a damn sight more pain than any of you sissy men could.....That in and of itself should prove to you that they can handle it. Oh and being around an @!$%# like you.

I'm OK with female combat troops as long as they can pass the Infantry School at Ft. Benning with no slackening of the requirements or standards for graduation to "accomodate" them. No girlie "knee" push-ups allowed, you know what I mean? People's lives depend on their physical strength. Valor may know no gender, but physical strength does. Unfortunately, I think that this change allowing women into combat is political grandstanding intended to make the president some early brownie points rather than a decision made for the good of the Services or the Nation.

I certainly hope that this Country has more care for putting their daughter's/mother's/wive's lives in mortal danger than we do for young males. Its one thing to have a military job that puts you in danger and quite another to engage in active combat operations as a ground-pounder.

Lastly, it should become law SOON that our young women have to register with the Selective Service when they turn 18 to toss in their lives with the young men. Its only fair. Heck, they should have had to do that since sex discrimination became illegal.

Merlin-420455 Unfortunately, I think that this change allowing women into combat is political grandstanding intended to make the president some early brownie points rather than a decision made for the good of the Services or the Nation.

No, I think they call it being trained and ready with the right tools to do the job (Combat Ready). We at this very moment have women on the ground on the front lines. They have their hands tied because of the BS about the "weaker sex".

I suggest you go to Walter Reed and talk to a young woman that had both her legs blown off while riding in a Humvee by a IED about your statement and see what she has to say about it.

These men and women put their lives on the line every day. They deserve our respect and our support in every manor.

This move has to do with equal pay and rank, and the ablility to be trained and have the right tools to do the job on the ground, and not a whole lot more.

Other than supporting the industrial military complex and the war economy we actually could save some money and some lives. 720 Bases in 120 different countries, WHY? We have the capability to defend this country but we are stretched a little thin defending the empire. Getting desperate now sice we have to use women in combat roles. I feel that women and men are equal when defending the country where the water meets the shore. Let's downsize and get more high tech, pull our forces out of area's we don't have to be in. Wars of choice, corporate wars! We are not making ourselves any more secure, just more hated in the world.

Why is killing people (many of which are women and children) so important to you? Love of killing is a trait shared by the likes of Jeffrey Dahmer and John Wayne Gacy. We kill and kill yet our problems don't go away. Something is wrong with this picture.

Jeffor,

Who are you talking to?

Perhaps - the President's daughters will get an opportunity to serve on the front lines in combat - much like Diana and Charles son Harry did.

That would be a very strong statement of Mr. Obama's support for women in combat!

Jeffor - You have a point. It's only made worse if you factor in how much the Western Gaming Industry uses Call of Duty and Gears of War to promote the heavy war agenda, and show how "okay" it is to shoot people.

If we have to look at others for our flaws, we're ignoring the big issue. We may have been a beacon of freedom and glory before, but now we're in danger of becoming just like Ancient Rome. If we try to conquer the world, we WILL suffer the same fate. Japan got the lesson after World War 2 (although it took a nuclear bombing of two entire cities to do so); so did Germany (they don't retain the heavy anti-semitic presence they once held), and Italy - in fact, we're all capable of learning from our sins, but those who don't, they fall, and they fall hard. And then what was once a golden symbol of hope and glory becomes no more than an ancient scrap of history.

"Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Not history itself, but the important lessons it teaches us."

@MarcusD - Obama won't be President at that point, and at the moment they're underage. You're suggesting we start using child soldiers just like that Kony freak?! Just like Al Qaeda and the Taliban do?!

From your words, you are suggesting we become the very enemy we are fighting. That is sickening. Go die, you dog of Ansar Al-Sharia! And take your white trash friends WITH YOU!

Another irrational decision made by a irrational Government, women traditionally reserve their fighting skills for when the fight reaches their own home. that is what makes them superior to men in some ways.

the truth of the matter is that in most cases women can not compete with men on the physical level, required on a large scale to put women in the field, remember you are only as strong as your weakest link, women are more emotional as well and to be honest there is no room on the battlefield for emotions or anxiety, some women can do it but there few and far between, there will be no other option but to lower the standards, or they will not be able to compete. or has the military already done that. its like fire training I had to carry a 190 lb person out of a building filled with smoke on my shoulders down several flights of stairs, the women only had to grab them by the ankles and drag them down the stairs, that was a change made so women could pass the test. women were getting the jobs equally against men that could out perform them. but only because the changes were made. and then on top of that they got extra test points for being female, or minority so a woman colored with a Spanish name and some time in service or gov employ= woman 10 pts previous military 10 points Black 10 pts Spanish surname 10 pts, would go into the test with 40 points before the test even began and if a score of 90 is acceptable then all they need is 50pts and different standards in the testing so they are halfway there before the test starts that is how things really worked back in the 70's they called it affirmative action! will the same standards apply to the military today? be care full when the term equal is used. but even with the point spreads and people being hired by their scores some still failed the test. then again a platoon of PMS unleashed on a Muslim fortification might work.

You can bet Obummer has no thought of letting his daughters go to combat. It's ok as long as it is someone else's. The idiot.

"BUSH's daughter didn't have to serve either, draft dodging war hawk"

sorry libbies! NANER NANER I beat you too it. Phucking idiots.

Constant re-use of the Bush Band-Aid - to cover up for Obama's incompetence - for the 5th year now - pathetic and sad

Hell, why not...our young men need a break after the two unfunded wars they've been busy with. Give em a rest. Institute selective service signup for everyone! I always thought it was unfair to have to register for a potential reinstatement of the draft while half the population gets a pass! (Sarc.)

Why is it so warm in here?....and what's with this crazy basket?

If Panetta has a strategy, it may be that when pictures and stories of women destroyed in combat, or failing to perform, or the atrocities committed on them as captives, etc all break loose, then the Mommas in the country will scream so loud the gubmint will stop these dumb wars. But I think his strategy is just to get warm bodies to serve because the pentagon's management of war and the troops has backfired and the boys are not enlisting in enough numbers. A guy can stay unemployed, get his girlfriend pregnant ( she can file for medicaid, section 8 housing, SNAP and more) he can move in with her when the gubmint employee isn't looking. This beats the heck out of enlisting for a living and getting your legs blown off. So the recruiting problem is being solved. Appeal to women to do their patriotic duty and bam, you got your numbers. Panetta is a sharp guy. He is a problem solver.

The Israeli's have women in the milatary in combat roles. Seems to work just fine for them and I dare anyone to tell me they don't have a top notch military. In fact most of the first world nations have women unless you want to lump us in with the middle east???

Israei's DO NOT have women in military combat rolls. Yes, they're trained for combat, but no, they do not serve in active combat units.

And no, "most" first world nations DO NOT have women in combat rolls...

If you believe they do, cg, show us...

Don't forget Sadden to remind him that our military is also stronger than any military that includes women in their combat roles

It's a bad idea, and that sums it up pretty well.

This is going to get real ugly. Men are going to die.

Ed, men are already dying wholesale. Why not add a few women to the body count? Besides take a look at how many women (military and civilian) have already died in Iraq.

This will cause more headache than its worth. A big part of military combat units is the comradery among men, which may not be as evident with women in the ranks. Where is the evidence that supports this change? I have a feeling this is the liberal administration's dealings and Panetta is just the messenger.

Ed, But lot's of fresh new babies will be born as a result......

It is a bad idea. Men and women are not the same. Yes both can pull a trigger but there is much more to it. People will die needlessly over this asinine objective.

I for one am glad they are allowing our sister soldiers a chance to get maimed and killed right along side us. I'm tired of picking up pieces of my brothers without the equal treatment allowed for the FET's.

And i can't wait to see the halls of the VA lined with female amputees as well.. Thank God for equal rights.

P.S. Yes this is my sarcastic voice... 11B20B4

at least the male soldiers will have some play toys in the field now, i can see the rape cases coming now. give me some money he touched me. smh

sloey, had the U.S. simply learned from history and realized the top militaries in ancient times engaged in sex before combat and didn't try to suppress the issue, you'd not be seeing so many rape cases in either gender in the military. Though pederasty was in part pedophilia, you can't argue with the results of giving a man the incentive to fight for one he loves instead of an abstract country where half the people hate what he does.

I know gen patreus' transgressions shouldn't be compared to the rest of military conduct, but as admirable as I believe gen patreus to be, I think it goes to show that mixing men and women in high stress situations always leads to human nature, a natural attraction, and these distractions are not worth it. We already have a problem in the military with frivilous marriages just to collect more benefits so men and women in the military definitely become attracted to each other to some degree.

CVP, to a point you are correct, but you're attacking the problem the wrong way. Actually promoting intimate relationships between military servants would be good for the whole both for psychological health and for actual combat situations. Knowing a loved one is threatened has a far greater effect than knowing your country is in danger and it's a proven fact.

I gave my opinions on this yesterday on another thread about this. Combat isn't a reality show, combat is different than combat training, combat is hard mentally and physically. I find it hard to believe that women are happy and cheering about being able to go into combat, this is very sick and disturbing behavior as far as I'm concerned. By the way, I'm a disabled Vietnam veteran (67-68).

Why is TORTURE so horrible now and not when CHENEY, RUMSFIELD, WOLFEWITZ, er um, I mean when Bush was President?

Too much distraction. Soldiers will be try to keep them safe.

Do the women have the right to refuse?

Milton, women will have to volunteer for combat.

I had female soldiers... none could pass the physical readyness test on the same level as the men. They didn't have to...

My BEST soldier was female, young Specialist that knew her stuff... but when it came down to it, she could not PHYSICALLY keep up with the male soldiers. So now we are going to sacrifice soldier so you liberal loonies and your racist in the White House can say you did something...

Nice job...

I've served in combat. This is not only the worst idea in the history of the US military, it is a clear sign of just how irrational and politically driven our government and military has become.

This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with gender equality.

1. The best jobs in the military are NOT in the combat arms career tracks.

2. The most highly ranked officers in the military (with the exception of former pilots) usually only served for a very brief period in a combat arms unit and often in administrative roles. The government is lying to women when they say that this creates opportunities for them. It does not.

3. Discipline is what makes forward combat units work. Most of the men in these units are exceptional at a small number of things - being prepared and maintaining composure in a combat environment. These same men also are terrible at a few things - dealing with societal pressures not found in a combat environment (you know - dealing with women). I knew a guy in the special forces who could put a bullet through a person's head at half a mile using virtually any long rifle without even thinking about it. Put a woman next to him and he'd turn into a turtle pissing himself. As much as women would say - that's his problem, the reality is that putting that form of pressure of a highly skilled soldier is a waste of a highly skilled soldier.

Combat arms is unique. It works for very specific reasons. The soldiers that end up in and stay in combat arms (and survive) are also unique. You throw women into this mix, women out to prove that they can do anything 'just as well as man,' and you are putting the lives of those women and men in danger. Combat arms is not about the individual. It is not about proving that you can do anything just as well as someone else. It's about meeting objectives, developing a cohesive unit and controlling people who are willing and have been trained to KILL. This has nothing to do with career opportunities. It's about killing.

jjjj

Puts me to the mind of WWII veterans. Most don't like to speak a word of the atrocities they faced or may have committed. People who want this know nothing about what it is like on the front line.

There were 2 women who served in combat in the Revolutionary war. Molly McCauley (Molly Pitcher) joined a cannon crew during a battle when one man fell. Her efforts were credited with turning the battle to the Americans as the men fought all the harder with her there. Maybe her efforts did help, but somehow I think obeying orders is more important on the battlefield.

The Second was a woman who disguised herself as a man and used her brother's name. She served the entire war and only when she quit did she reveal she was actually a woman.

I think if they can pass the same required physical tasks skills as a man is required, then fine, I'll accept that. We need to determine if their being there is going to cause undesired problems in situations that require no problems to be successful.

Try it with volunteers, and find out.

I had female soldiers... none could pass the physical readyness test on the same level as the men. They didn't have to...

Not all men score the same either though. PT tests are made easier as you get older. Should we ban a 41 year old E-8 from combat because he can't do as many push-ups as an 18 year old? Yes it is true that not all women would be able to handle the rigors of a combat arms MOS but not all men can either. I was a 13-B/Cannon crew member. 155mm rounds weigh around 100lbs. and I can tell you that there are a lot of men who can't heft those suckers around. Same with road marches, fatigue, etc.

wha ? could you repeat that ?

I said that same thing to my wife.....she responded with "the same things happen to any prisoners...women just have an extra oriface...."

Gross. But true.

Men already die a horrible death when tortured and killed. Why is the well-being of a female soldier of greater concern than the well-being of a male soldier? Is a woman worth more than a man ?

ian, actually the reality is yes. Men can't carry children. women can. the new mexico whiptail lizard was reduced to all females and the population keeps reproducing still. The reality is men are not likely to win out on the war of genetics as the y-chromosome shrinks 1 allele every 20 years. Before long men will be extinct.

Does the story of the girl who was gang raped and had her guts blended up on a bus ring a bell?

I don't hear about that happening to any men. There is a distinct difference between men and women in this situation. Women don't belong on the front lines. Wait until a few thousand of them see real combat. The tune will change overnight.

Dralchemy, that girl on the bus clung to life and fought longer than any man would have. Joan of Arc ring a bell.? She lead the French in battle and then was matyred for her religious beliefs. Women through the ages have proven their strength. We all certainly know which gender is brought to their knees by a cold virus (men). Women are police officers and EMT's and prison guards. It's time misogyny be overruled. Dralchemy you can't handle the truth.

Who cares if a female soldier gets captured and tortured? It's the same chance that male soldiers have... it happens in wars. Due to that racist in the White House, who CLEARLY wants to weaken our Military readiness, we don't do torture prisioners, and I'm sure our enemies won't either...

My issue is, if a female doesn't pass the minimum physical requirements of male soldiers, how can you say she's equal to men? How can you, in good concience, put her in a unit that other soldiers rely on her for?

"longer than any man"

Yep go figure. Man hating feminist. I can handle the truth and you completely missed the point: WOMEN ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE CAPTURE AND TORTURED AND RAPED THAN MEN

phucking idiot.

Real men don't get the cold or flu. I haven't had it since I was 5. Suck it you b!tch.

I think you are right. Panetta shilling for Pres O on his way out to a happy paycheck for life retirement deal.

@ coal man, yes we've noticed. they are buying back our guns and all the while giving assault weapons to Egypt. we end up defenseless and open for attack.

yeah yeah, and you forget israel gained its statehood through terrorism that it is still enacting today without relent against palestine. What you see palestine doing right now is exactly what israel did to gain attention and statehood. Food for thought.

Mrs 8, largest navy and airforce in the world toppling the next 14 combined. No one is coming to america unless it be by land, and no one wants to live through a canadian winter or attempt to take over mexico to get to us. International threats to the U.S. do not exist.

Coalman: Selling F-16s is OK. Now, we can sell AA missiles to Isreal because the Egyptians have new F-16's. All part of the US mil industrial complex money making machine. If you get paid a couple hundred thou a year from the industry you believe you are a flag waving patriot. IF not, it just looks like war for profit.

Actually,The UN voted to give Israel Statehood,then the fighting began.Your fix on history is somewhat confused.

Our muslim president is sending the jets to Egypt... Jews have to hate Obozo!!!!

NC, you over looked some very simple things. What about sleeping quarters,showering , etc. while in the field during war time.

Joe, you REALLY SHOULD go read the article.......

I served with IMEF in the late 70's and 80......Those things were already worked out back then.

Get your head out of the sand.

I also was in the Army, please enlighten me on how those "things" are worked out while you are sitting in a jungle somewhere

joe,

I have overlooked nothing.

Let them use different facilities when practical and not when it is not practical. In combat, we can not be picky about where to take a leak, a dump, or where we sleep. Getting the job done and losing no lives is the goal. PC concerns must take a hike.

I said in my post above that as problems arise, and they will, handle them in the best way you can given the situation. If male or female cannot handle using the same facilities, especially in a combat situation, then that person or those people may not want to become combat soldiers.

It is quite interesting how fast the thin veneer of civilization wears off in a combat situation. Many of the issues in a civilian environment just do not seem to matter in battle.

Let us go ahead and give this a shot thereby laying to rest the preconceived notions of each side of the argument.

There you go, joe.

Well, Joe-2849984, one would imagine that, if you boys can work those "things" out in the jungle somewhere, female soldiers will be just as capable of working them out as well.

boat guy, wishful thinking, there will be problems. The military already has its problems with sexual harassment suits now.

joe, and thats the reason the spartans were the dominant military in greece for hundreds of years. They understood human needs for sex and stress relief, and so they embraced pederasty. This is one place conservative military generals have gotten the idea completely wrong.

Joe

Those same arguments were once used when they allowed colored troops to integrate too. Separate showers etc. It's no more a valid argument today than it was back then.

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.

NO difference between city police and military combat units? Where in the heck have you been?

All police women are bull dykes. That is a fact.

The difference between a cop and a combat arms soldier is the difference between night and day. There are plenty of female MPs and I worked with a number of good ones. In the military, an MP isn't considered a combat operative.

I have seen 1 exception Nancypelosi...

I got pulled over by THE HOTTEST female state trooper, twice. Once was on valentines day.... boy oh boy was that lady unhappy that night. And again.... 3 weeks later..... ughhh

Later when I saw her in court I realized just how hot she was. Bout 5'5, tight waste, big breasts, some eastern european or russian accent, dark eyes, plush lips.... FREAKING SEXY! She was wearing a mini skirt, what a nice little booty she had on her.

I should have convinced her I had drugs in my crotch. OH yeah, all but 1 tickets got dismissed too. Still had to pay the 62 in a 55.... oh well.

Poor people and democrats are already in the military, so the takers are already over there.

Prof, do you imagine that the military is full of trust fund kids? It's largely working-class and the poor who sign up looking for opportunities.

I support an all female military. There would be no more fatalities, just catty putdowns, nasty looks, and snippy comments behind the enemy's back. "Did you see the size of the burka on that slut"?

Have to agree with you on that. How pathetic!!

LOL, funny but true.

God help us all with neanderthols like HELPTHISCOUNTRY around. What a totally immature thing to say.

I have 20 years of military service. I sense that you have probly never served anything but yourself.

helpthiscountry:

Since it's obvious you haven't paid much attention to anything outside your personal echo-chamber in quite some time, you should know that women are already serving in active combat capacities in a number of countries such as New Zealand, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Germany, Norway, Israel, Serbia, Sweden and Switzerland; additionally, there are some 45 countries where GLBT's proudly serve.

The reason you don't hear that much about any of this is simply because there aren't anywhere near the number of problems associated with it as you whiny, misogynistic, homophobic Barcalounger Generals seem to imagine there should be.

Sorry, but reality doesn't adhere to your military-porn fantasies...

boatguy, your'e delusional and do a lot of assuming.

joe, boat guy and I have both done independent research into the matter on numerous occassions. Your idea of reality is a bit fogged over.

And help, actually having sex before a known combat situation allows the body to relax and fully sleep without the stressors. The spartans got more right than any U.S. general ever gave them credit for.

Joe, how many years of service do you have....

if anyone on this thread is delusional, it's you. Every country he listed and more.

tom, please, it has nothing to do with how many years I served , I got drafted. It's common sense, and the countries he listed, please prove to me how many of these women were actually in REAL combat.

joe, among the countries listed, 58741 women have served in open combat situations. Of those, only 1,417 have died in combat.

Could that be because none of those countries get into long term heavy duty combat situations?

New Zealand, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Germany, Norway, Israel, Serbia, Sweden and Switzerland;

I MIGHT consider Germany, Israel and Serbia slightly relevant. The rest amount ot nothing. Canadian warfare? LMFAO

If they go off to fight in combat, who's going to iron my shirt?

This is getting old and tiresome, but I'll repeat it again.

Anything that reduces the effectiveness of our military CAN NOT be allowed.

The military IS NOT a testing ground for political correctness.

When the heII are these nitwits in washington going to get it!!!!!!!

Boatguy

- You just named every country that hasn't had a serious combat engagement in the last century.

Here's the reality (from a combat veteran):

1. Most men and women in the military do just about everything they can to stay out of forward, direct combat, units. The 10% who don't are unique. I knew plenty of openly gay men when I served in a combat unit. Few cared and no one did anything about it. The reason was because the kind of men that serve in forward units are not threatened by gay men. However, the kind of men that serve (and survive) in forward units have incredible problems with women.

I've met incredible soldiers who couldn't get along with their wives if their life depended on it. Most of them are single. Most have some serious issues (either from before they entered the military or developed over time through combat).

2. This is going to create such difficulties in leadership, discipline and organization that it is ridiculous. This will kill soldiers.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND? This ridiculousness will kill soldiers and you will never get to hear about it because no one wants to pull their heads out of their a$$es and look at reality.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but there are female combat troops from Germany & New Zealand serving in Afghanistan as we speak. Many of those and some from other countries have already served in Iraq.

Grey whats the ratio of females to men serving?

Woulda, coulda, shoulda! But you didn't. If you truely wanted to be a soldier, you would have gone regardless of restrictions. Oh yeah, Ants do not shot back, big difference!

Ridiculous post.

Combat arms is the worst career track that anyone in the military can take. You could have gone into any of four hundred other fields. Sounds like you were looking for an excuse to not serve.

All the yappers who think that women can be in the infranty are completely clueless. They had three marine women who thougt they could make it through the marines infantry officers school. None of them made it. It is a complete waste of resources.They will have to lower the standards because it is physically impossible for them to make it. I would go as far as to say that there is not a women alive that could make it. When you start talking speacial ops, 80 percent of the infantry men don't even make it. This is politically correct BS that this lame dick penatta is putting in place as he walks out the door. What a complete POS. Women you do not know what you are asking for. why don't we start with women playing in the NFL before we put them and others in a life and death situation on the battle field.

Those women who didn't make it through infantry training were asked to participate, and not chosen for any physical qualities, they are just Marines. (Marines have no difference in physical quals for boot camp or anything else. Female Marines have already proven themselves a cut above.)

But back to the infantry training.....how many men in that class failed too? So is a complete waste of resources to have training that MEN routinely fail?

Any woman who wants to be in the infantry (and that number is in the hundreds,, hardly worth getting your panties in such a wad) and passes the physical quals will be a force to be reckoned with and an asset to her fellow soldiers or Marines. Get used to it. You'd wet your pants if a female Marine decided to take issue with you. You'd poop your pants when you saw the male Marines standing behind her, backing her up.

where have you been? 3 women already play in the afl...

Susan STFU with your ridiculous "come backs"

How many men don't pass. PRobably a good percentage. DO YOU REALLY think, HONESTLY, that there is going to be a higher percentage of woman passing than men?

Remove head from feminist a$$.

Women can't pass the same physical tests that a man can. Why don't women box with men? Because the can't handle it.

This is the most ridiculous thing ever in the history of the US military.

I served in a combat arms unit and I served in combat. This has nothing to do with whether or not women can pass the same tests as men, whether or not they can shoot, whether or not they are, 'as good.'

Do you know what it takes to get someone to willingly move into a dangerous situation where they could get killed and to get them to be effective in that environment? In other words, to get them to kill. It takes discipline, it takes constant training, it takes wrought iron organization. Now let's throw gender and sex and all that entails into it.

I realize that Americans have become so mindless and delusional that to suggest that men and women are different, that men and women act differently when around and not around each other is somehow a terrible offensive thing, but that's the plain truth. You take women out of the equation and combat arms units can work with a whole lot of work. Put women into them and watch the stress levels rise, watch the rapes and assaults rise, watch the discipline and organization degrade. It's not the women's fault entirely, nor will it be at the fault of men, it is the fault of thousands of years of evolution. Men act differently around women. Women act differently around men. That's nature.

This political crap will kill soldiers. It's that simple. It will kill men, it will kill women, it will deter from our combat unit's effectiveness and erode away at more than two hundred years of military tradition all because women want to prove 'they can do anything a man can do,' when this has nothing to do with matching what another can do.

People will die because of this and our government and our media will never even let you know.

No registration. NO financial aid benefits etc...

What's good for the goose.

Well said! Right on!

Where the heck have some of you been????? Women have been on Navy ships for over 30 years.

Wave,

As I said in post 11.4. above, use only one set of standards. If anyone can pass, let them do the job as long as they can keep doing it.

I alos said, if we need to ever draft again, women should be required to register at 18 the same as men.

Do you not realize gays made the spartan military as powerful as it was? Maybe the rape cases would disappear if military men were encouraged to strengthen their comaraderie. Suppressing oneself always leads to disaster and more stress than it's worth. Sex is necessary for being a healthy adult.

WTF PATRICK93 !? THEY CAN USE THEIR FRIGGIN HAND!!!

It's OBVIOUS that MEN ARE THE WEAKER SEX, if they can't CONTROL THEIR SEXUAL URGES!!!

Patrick93 is creeping me out with all his talk of pederasty, etc.

Lots of talk about it.

And Key wishes she could literally eat men but she continues to eat carpet instead.

Why should a straight man have to shower with some Pole Smoker that is slobering over another mans junk?

ron, most would not be physically qualified, just the facts of life. But I'm sure King Obama is happy.

joe, don't count your chickens before they hatch. the experiment hasn't even begun.

Just have one stardard for all. You you can't do the job physically, or mentally, then the person should be out (man or woman).

You guys know nothing about what makes a combat unit work or how they work. This has nothing to do with qualifications or opportunities. It's politics and politics gets good soldiers (men and women) killed.

Camoflauge colored nail polish. Pink rifles. Camel scented perfume. The entrepreneurial opportunities of this decision are unlimted. Congratulations Mr. Panetta.

Only if you aren't up for dumbest SOB.

Ed-281881 got that right. I can only dream that one day Panetta might have to stuff the guts back inside the abdomen of a young women who had them torn out by a shell from an AK47 in Iraq, Afghanistan, or maybe, North Korea. This country is truly going nuts...

Well, if women can't handle male chauvinism, then fighting on the front lines will be a disaster for them. Standard rules of etiquette and principle do not apply when bullets are bouncing off your Kevlar and you are picking up body parts from the remnants of an IED attack.

I agree with Shawn. If you're going to work in a force that is predominately male, you have to learn to deal with it. As a female who once worked in the auto-parts business, I had to have tough skin.

Let the gender inequality lawsuits begin in 3......2......1...

"He slapped me on the ass when I stood frozen in fear"

"He used the B and C words"

"He touched my boobs while he was carrying my wounded bleeding body back to camp"

It will happen, mark my words

This isn't about whether or not the women have thick skin. This is about having a fighting force that is second to none. If our marines are sent to fight and the force is all women we will get slaughtered. There are some duties that women can perform that won't put them in harms way. They clean up the camp & rub the soldiers feet.

Woman! MY feet hurt. **clap clap**