I wonder … the military is having to cut back derastically thanks to Oblama. And most of those being put out are white males.

So I wonder … is the reason the Pentagon wants to put women closer to combat is because they simply do not have enough males needed to fill the closer positions?

Women in Combat?

ABSOLUTELY!!!!! Women are no different than men! Heck, just ask them! In fact, the message I get from the female crowd is……Their the leadership of the world……Bigger, stronger, faster, and for sure more intelligent! Heck, let’s put them in charge of combat operations period and have our front line combat troops and special forces nothing but female. I’m all for it! Let’s get it done today!

Strap on the gear and kick their butts off the back of a C130 right in the middle of a firefight. No exceptions for them! I mean, why not?
Women are EQUAL to men, correct? Jobs, income, FREEDOMS, etc etc etc
I see no reason whatsoever that females get a pass when the men do not. Can’t have your cake and eat it too, correct? Well, let me re-think that statement. Females do get the cake and do get to eat it too.

Bottom line, you want to run around with the stars and stripes on your chest asserting yourself as some kind of want-a-be military leader, well, need to earn it just like the men do, no exceptions.

Bottom line, America has been watching way to many Hollywood movies. i.e.; G I Jane, etc etc etc

Personally I think sex IS irrevelant , When some females were ladies it did make a difference , but that is no longer applicable , all the ladies left in this country are too old for combat and there are no more cominjg along . However , I would support a law demanding that only liberals and sexual perverts served in frontline units .

The women, by and large, do NOT want to be in combat. But there are people who insist they should be – generally people who have no intention of getting into combat themselves. Why? I don’t know.

Israel, when it was first a country, was forced to put women into combat beside the men. They simply didn’t have enough men to fill the need. But as soon as they did, they took the women out. They had found that having mixed troops raised the deaths in combat. Men would do their beet to protect the females either due to chivalric reasons or because the woman was their lover and they risked others to protect her.

I ran into the same problem with a couple of gay men in Viet Nam. All of us knew they were gay and didn’t care – until they got seperated in a battle. The sergant then ordered his men into dangerous positions in an attempt to end the battle quickly to insure his lover was safe. He was sent elsewhere and a week later his lover was transfered too. We were glad to see them go. The rules now simply insure that this will continue to happen with both males and females.

How many of these women that want to be on the front lines want to come home with their pretty faces blown away arms and legs missing and all that glorious stuff. They are much better off just being women.

I am against women in line units, it’s not that they can’t do thier job, some can, some can’t, just as some men can’t. As a former Army Ranger, I know what hardship is about, most women don’t want that, the ones that do, I guess give em a shot. My wife ran Tactical Maritime Security Teams as contractor to the DOD. I didn’t like it but she was good at it. I think everyone should spent 3 years in uniform, our country would be stronger and our kids will grow up wiser.

…we could designate him as a minesweeper and equip him with a broom….sweep,sweep boom !!!!!!

This is good news! However, the policy once again does not go far enough. Everyone, including grammy and gramps should be allowed to go out with a “BANG”. In fact, the fraud in chief should be in the lead tank.