Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 65
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,465
    vCash
    1500

    Report: Women should be allowed to serve in combat

    Washington (CNN) -- A Pentagon commission on diversity is recommending the U.S. military end its ban on women serving in direct combat roles -- a restriction the group says is discriminatory and out of touch with the demands of modern warfare.

    In its draft report, the Military Leadership Diversity Commission said the military should gradually eliminate the ban in order to create a "level playing field for all qualified service members."

    The commission, comprised of senior military officers, businessmen and academics, must now release a final report. Its findings would then need to be sent to Congress and President Obama before any changes to policy would be implemented.

    The draft report said the military's "combat exclusion policies" do not reflect the realities of the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and create institutional barriers to women, who are prevented from getting key assignments that could lead to career advancement.

    "Service policies that bar women from gaining entry to certain combat-related career fields, specialties, units, and assignments are based on standards of conventional warfare, with well-defined, linear battlefields," the report said. "However, the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have been anything but conventional."
    Source: CNN.com

    I dont just post this because i believe it is sexist to have, as a policy, the barring of women from service in some regards, but also because this was discussed rather heatedly when we were discussing the repeal of DADT.

    I believe that many of those who oppose this idea believe that it will result in some sort of quota system where we require X number of women to be in these rules, but i strongly disagree. I believe that this will allow the most qualified, whether they be man or woman, to serve in these capacities. If (for example sake) 10 men are the best qualified they should be able to go. If (again for example sake) 8 men and 2 women are best qualified they should be able to go.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    43,212
    vCash
    7100
    If they want to fight, let them. I don't understand the issue here with allowing them in combat roles.
    On Cam Newton:

    Quote Originally Posted by Norm View Post
    So it's official.

    This jerk off is going to be the first QB taken in the first round (or maybe the first 5) in the modern era to throw less than 300 passes at DI level. and he might go #1 overall.


    hahahahahahahahahahahaha

    Nfl scouting is a joke.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    38,229
    vCash
    1500
    If someone wants to go get shot at, more power to them I guess.
    Visit my Blog.



    "Glad the GOP finally came out with an Obamacare alternative. Can't wait to see their alternative to the Iraq War." - @LOLGOP

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    6,300
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    Source: CNN.com

    I dont just post this because i believe it is sexist to have, as a policy, the barring of women from service in some regards, but also because this was discussed rather heatedly when we were discussing the repeal of DADT.

    I believe that many of those who oppose this idea believe that it will result in some sort of quota system where we require X number of women to be in these rules, but i strongly disagree. I believe that this will allow the most qualified, whether they be man or woman, to serve in these capacities. If (for example sake) 10 men are the best qualified they should be able to go. If (again for example sake) 8 men and 2 women are best qualified they should be able to go.
    The last paragraph is a bad example of the slippery slope argument, and based on an assumption that may not prove out. Aren't most military decision based on merit? Is there a reason why you think the military would go away from the merit-based concept in this situation?
    “A riot,” said Martin Luther King, “is the language of the unheard.”

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Andyville
    Posts
    2,854
    vCash
    1500
    I see nothing wrong with this at all.
    lol nothing matters

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,465
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by homestarunner93 View Post
    If they want to fight, let them. I don't understand the issue here with allowing them in combat roles.
    Well that is my reason for posting this, some people dont see it that way. It doesnt really make much sense to me, but the idea as i understand it, is that woman cant keep up with men so they shouldnt be in the way. Maybe someone who disagrees with me (and you) on this subject can explain the mindset, but i dont get the idea of not even letting them compete. If they cant beat the men who want the job then they wont harm a thing, now if they can then is there some sort of ego-bruise or something? Maybe that is it, because i honestly have no clue how to justify them not being given a chance to even compete.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,465
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Labgrownmangoat View Post
    The last paragraph is a bad example of the slippery slope argument, and based on an assumption that may not prove out. Aren't most military decision based on merit? Is there a reason why you think the military would go away from the merit-based concept in this situation?
    Maybe because of the whole focus of the article, that woman are not allowed to serve in many roles in combat. So if they are more qualified they would not be allowed to serve in those roles.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    6,854
    vCash
    1500
    If they standardize the APFT and females have the same requirements as males, then I'm fine with it. However, I also think the APFT has to be overhauled. Even if you can pass the push ups, sit ups, and the run, it doesn't mean you are going to be an effective soldier with all your gear on. I think there has to be a portion with a timed ruck march or something of that effect. And like I mentioned, if women want to have a combat MOS, they need to use the same physical requirements as men.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,465
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Sox_13 View Post
    If they standardize the APFT and females have the same requirements as males, then I'm fine with it. However, I also think the APFT has to be overhauled. Even if you can pass the push ups, sit ups, and the run, it doesn't mean you are going to be an effective soldier with all your gear on. I think there has to be a portion with a timed ruck march or something of that effect. And like I mentioned, if women want to have a combat MOS, they need to use the same physical requirements as men.
    I completely agree, all the standards should be the exact same. I think that people like myself, i will concede there is a portion of "my side" that thinks the standards for women should be lower but that wont help anyone (not the women and not the army), who believe that women should be given the same opportunity as men.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the smog meets the shore
    Posts
    31,633
    vCash
    1500
    For an organization that stalks down recruits at underprivileged schools, shopping malls and parks and feels the need to advertise on TV regularly.....I don't see how they get to be picky-choosy.

    With the B.S. they cause around the world, they should be happy anyone wants to serve.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Honolulu, HI
    Posts
    8,622
    vCash
    1500
    There are girls at my detachment that can seriously **** some **** up. I see no reason as to not let them fight if they meet the physical requirements.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,465
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Jenceman View Post
    There are girls at my detachment that can seriously **** some **** up. I see no reason as to not let them fight if they meet the physical requirements.
    Exactly i dont think anyone who wants the army to be the best it can be would suggest different standards. For the middle school Presidential fitness thing that is fine, but this is real war and the standards should be the exact same. As in my example, we should send the best 10 people that we can whether they be men/women/gay/straight.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    6,300
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    Maybe because of the whole focus of the article, that woman are not allowed to serve in many roles in combat. So if they are more qualified they would not be allowed to serve in those roles.
    I misread your original statement. We're arguing on the same side here. My bad.
    “A riot,” said Martin Luther King, “is the language of the unheard.”

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    25,683
    vCash
    1500
    I agree though I think they should be held to the same standard as the men required for combat as long as the tests are relevant to performance

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    The North Pole
    Posts
    3,774
    vCash
    1500
    Why shouldn't they?

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •