Panetta to lift ban on women in combat

Panetta to lift ban on women in combat. Well, this should make for some interesting moments in the foxhole.

This post was last modified on January 26, 2021

CO2Insanity: Tired of the CO2 BS and all the other BS in the US and the world.

View Comments (36)

  • Let's see in the past 2 years:

    Lifting of don't, ask don't tell
    Women on subs (starting with 22-24 year old women fresh out of college. No mentorship onboard. Yeah, this will end well.)
    Women in combat
    NCO training pipeline curtailed

    HELLO!

    Wereas I believe some women can handle the demands of being in a combat situation... I could not. I could not carry a 75lb rucksack on a 20mile hump. That's 65% of my weight! I'd weigh down my team. I'd put them at risk. Now having those female teams that are out there gathering intel where men can't hoof it back 20 miles to the nearest base for the night to satisfy some arbitrary rule congress set up to define them as non-combat, that's just stupid.

    • As long as the training and standards stay the same, (they'll probably be lowered, so as to not be sexist), and everyone is treated equally, there won't be any women actually assigned to a combat unit anyway.

      This is done for pure political grandstanding, nothing more. Buying votes.

  • It's proven BS. When my son and 99 others volunteered for a "special" mission in Iraq several were women, including drivers and even M2 gunners. Not one of them made it through the whole year. Each and every one of them got tired, scared or bored. . . then got pregnant and a free ticket home.

    This is an emotional desicion in the one form of human endevour that requires pure logic in decisions.

  • If this administration proposes it then you know it is bad. We are going to be fighting Islamist until Christ returns. Women would weaken an infantry unit and serve as a magnet to 7th century throwbacks. Ask Jessica Lynch.

    • I laughed at that., too. Sort of like we need to take every step to protect our children, but I support abortion...

  • On one hand, if they can do the job, ok.

    On the other hand, if a female is on patrol with a 220 lb. male who gets wounded, what if she can't carry him?

    On the third hand, I'll just go with something Chevy Chase said on SNL in the 70's. "Yeah, let's have an ALL female army. That way, if we lose a war, we can say - 'So what? You beat a bunch of girls!'.

  • Lets see if Hillary scrambles the whole fucking USAF and the entirety of the PJ's to rescue 1 female marine private, just like she did for the Benghazi 4!
    This idea is bad on every level-PERIOD. It won't be a good day when a whole camp of taliban have their way with a female Army private, just before beheading her for being a "whore". These people in DC are utter retards!

  • I agree that women should be on equal footing. The Israelis use to have women on their front lines and in combat situations. They found out that the men would do everything in their power to protect the women including restricting their abilities to fight as the men did.

    The one thing that has to remain is that the standards remain the same. That way the best person is in the shit and not some PC experiment. All that will do is get a lot of very good people killed.

  • If they pass the same tests, go through the same training, etc, then it shouldn't matter if you're man, woman, pink, purple, whatever.

    • All of you who don't have a problem with women in combat seem to forget one important fact about women: They have periods every month.

      If a gal is assigned to a recon team is she going to be allowed to stand down for 5 or 6 days every month? Is it fair to her teamates if they draw a 2 week recon mission she doesn't have to go because it's "that time of the month"? If she is on the front line where the hell is she supposed to go to drop her drawers to go to the bathroom or take care of her female needs? Don't you think His and Hers portapotties would be a little conspicuous on a battlefield?

      I have all the respect in the world for the women in our military, they do a stand up job at all times. But, they do not belong in a frontline combat unit. They cannot stand up to the physical hardships and have personal hygiene nessities that men do not.

      • When I commented on Hygeine needs, this was what I was thinking. Actually the only reason women are pushing for combat roles is that the career ladder in the military only promotes people with combat experience to most upper rank levels. Pilots are 1st, then men with combat experience. There have been a few women generals, so theree are obviously a few ways to be promoted, but over all, this is the issue. Called the Brass Ceiling (in the civilian world its called the glass ceiling) and refers to the limit above which it is very difficult for a woman to be promoted. If a non combat career ladder was established, I think the vast majority of women would be less interested in combat roles. And whiskey, their periods should not affect their readiness. I worked 12-16 hour shifts for some 30 years, both having periods and pregnant and I never missed a day for either.

    • Whenever this type of thinking has entered into " social policy " it has EVERY TIME resulted in watering down of the standards and someone more qualified being denied an opportunity in exchange for a quota system than pretends equality/fairness .

  • I've seen a couple of different reports on Fox over the years about women in combat. I remember what one military man against it said. He said that when it came to carrying 80 pound backpacks in trying to qualify, the women just didn't have the upper body strength or legs to do it. He also said you get the dynamic of sexual attraction working in a unit which can result in distraction and division. He said something about a high percentage of females becoming pregnant in mixed units where it has been tried. He also says that the men in the unit tend to want to lookout for and protect the women in the unit from a chivalrous instinct. Not that men don't watch each others' backs in all male units, but there is too much of this when women are involved. Finally, he cited the differences in male and female hygiene. He said a man could stay down in a foxhole for 10 days, but that women can start to have problems after a time.

    The main error of liberals in all this is that they just cannot accept the fact that men and women are different. Equal but different. They think that for a woman to be equal to a man, she must be just like a man. God only knows how many abortions there have been because some ambitious women don't want to get behind the men in their career paths. This stuff also plays into the gay marriage debate in that liberals see no differences between men and women. They think having two Dads or two Moms makes no difference in a child's life. But a child absent a mother can be starved for nurturing and eventually try to get it in unhealthy ways. While a child with two mothers can miss out on the strength and direction that comes from a father. Ask some of the people in Chicago about that. It can also be difficult for a boy with two mothers to recognize his masculinity.

    • I agree completely. Women have a different physique than men. They have less upper body strength, NEED a little more fat than men, and aspointed out, have some hygeine issues to deal with. Having said that, women have BEEN in combat zones forever. And in the current wars, where there is NO definite front line, they are more vulnerable than ever. They need better training, to better deal with their exposure, how to resist interrogation, survival skills, etc. And women will NEVER be considered equal to men in the Military. Not that they aren't competent, but they don't meed the "brothers in arms" stuff well.

Related Post
  1. DALLAS POLICE SHOOTING: ‘ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE ASSAULT VEHICLE AND TROOP TRANSPORT’
  2. Kim Jong-un was a child prodigy
  3. Top GOP Leader Promises Total Amnesty In 2015