Journal Community


Explore Group

Do you agree with the decision to open more combat roles to women?


« »
Recommend a comment by clicking the recommendation icon

    I just want to know if a woman can carry me off the battlefield if I get shot.

    1 Recommendation

  • Curtis, you are probably right. Most women are either too weak, too dumb, too obnoxious, too abnormal, or too something else to deserve equal rights in the military. Lucky for me then that none of my teams "dumped me out in the desert". Instead they used my "psychological basket case" to lead their teams, train their soldiers and run their operations. And I am also grateful that they still have some crazy logic to use all of my negative traits and qualities to further protect and defend.

    2 Recommendations

  • Women can be in combat IF the units in which they serve are ALL FEMALE UNITS, and, obviously, those women take medication to stop their menstrual cycles and also take birth control pills.

    2 Recommendations


    All the anti women arguments here focus on a situation where US forces are outside the US somewhere. If the US was attacked, then US forces would have defensive positions in the US on their own territory and largely wouldn't have to worry about slogging through terrain, carrying wounded back somewhere because they would already be dug in and have most of their resources to call upon locally around them. The military would also be able to call upon 300+ Million civilians and their weapons to help defend the country.

    The situation where US forces are in someone else's country means that the US is the aggressor, by definition, and US troops are put in harms way purposely by the political class which really gives a rats butt about them. This has been the situation for decades and the military folks never seem to catch on that they are being used in a fashion that allows the rest of the world to view them negatively. The foreigners being aggressed against obviously don't like that situation and fight back. In this case, women are probably less capable physically than the men, IN GENERAL. All casualties however, are avoidable by simply not going over seas.

    Women in a combat position, defending the US on US soil seems like a reasonable proposition. It's only when they are on someone else's turf that things get dicey. The solution obviously is for US forces to act strictly in a defensive role.

    Bring all troops home. Let the foreign governments fund their own conflicts and use their own folks for cannon fodder.

    Arguing this threads point evades the larger issue. Why are US troops asked to go where they clearly aren't wanted? Why should US troops be put into a position that not only doesn't protect and defend the US, but puts the US military and civilians in harms way to funnel money to the weapons industry and keep conflict after conflict churning with no clear victory? Where is the honor in that?

    For the life of me, I can't understand why anyone would volunteer in the US military to become little more than a paid mercenary for US corporate and political interests.


    1 Recommendation


    @Phillip Byler

    WRT, "War is not about equal opportunity"

    It is - kill or be killed. That is the denominator . Winning is only the goal.

    WRT, "...a lot of women, most, even, think that the military is like the movie GI Jane"

    And men thinks its like G.I. Joe yet the reality of danger exist for both equally.

    WRT, "Over 99% of women would get killed in hand to hand combat"

    According to what study, and hand to hand with whom?

    WRT, "Over 99% of women are not able to handle the austerity and rigor of forward deployed operations"

    According to what study and which deployments and roles? It can't be combat since they already serve and die in combat.

    WRT, "Over 99% of women are not mentally tough enough to succeed in outside the wire operations."

    False. Just consider the amount of women that are more likely to be abused by the likes of such who harbor such a false misconceptions. Women are dying and are also being successful in combat....perhaps you need to research your own beliefs and not state your fallacies as facts.

    WRT, "Facts are difficult things

    I can tell by your allegations. Only if you try to find ways around it!

    WRT, "this post is a catalog of facts"


    WRT, "Same principle applies to humans. Size and strength matter. Period.

    As if a mind of reason, logic or brain power is irrelevant, be it as it may, it was of course not mentioned by you as relevant factors, and only resolves your position nonetheless.



  • Emet, you don't know how hilarious your last comment was, do you?

    1 Recommendation

  • With declining fertility rates, allowing young, fertile woman on the front lines could be a recipe for a demographic disaster in a major conflict.

    1 Recommendation

  • unlike tennis, swimming and basketball, there won't be men's and women's division wars. something to think about in the "absolutely fair" world.

    3 Recommendations


    How could a rational thinking human being respond favorably to this approval? Don't get me wrong, I get it, I understand the decision making process. However, women, combat, front lines? C'mon, I don't like the idea of our guys on the front lines! With this decision, to send women to the forefront of battle, only reinforces that WE WILL BE INVOLVED IN SOME SORT OF MILITARY ACTION in the future! That kind of rhetoric is NOT required in this day & age! Is it somebody's agenda in Washington to have our citizens knee deep in jungle muck, or carrying 60 to 100 pound packs through some middle eastern sandbox ? That is NOT the REALITY I foresee for our youth in the immediate future ! Our needs are at home! As hard as that is to comprehend on Capital Hill, we as a nation should be capitalizing on the genius of our younger generation, wherby, they would be better served as we would, when we apply their thinking to repair, remake, remodel, re-energize, our 50 states! Our infrastructure is of the utmost importance, policing the world is not! Engaging in military conflicts through lies & deceit, as has been the norm since LBJ was in office, needs to come to an end! Our men & women of the armed forces deserve careers that are filled with promise & hope so they can prosper & grow in their chosen field. They DO NOT deserve despair & doubt with thoughts of never having the life they originally signed up for.



      It's a volunteer military.

      Those that volunteer to murder on command in some foreign land are despicable individuals. The men and women of the US military are the CAUSE of blowback popularly labeled "terrorism".


      • Bill. you are the despicableone who needs to go back to the left wing sites where your lunacy may be regarded with favor. Our military personnel are our country's finest.

        As for your assertion that we have caused the radical Islamists to wage war against us, please find you brain and engage reality. The radical Islamists, with their totalitarian sharia law system, hate us for what we are and what we believe as free people.

        1 Recommendation


    Yes. One of the consequences of this move will be a population that will be more against senseless overseas conflicts than it is now, especially when orphaned children will be left behind by some unfortunate mother. In the long run that is a good thing.


« »
To add a comment please
Create an Account

Your real name is required
for commenting.

  • Clear
  • Post
Your Profile Here…

Set up your profile to connect with members of Journal Community.


Your Groups Here…



Most Active Discussions