I was not in the military, I can not speak from personal experience so I differ to those that have been there and know what they are talking about. People with "opinions" based on what a psychiatrist who also was never there or based on what "feels good" is meaningless to me. It was stated that this General was against women and gays. I am bowing to his expertise in the matter. If Freeman or Danivon were in combat / field deployment with women/gays, then I value their opinions. I know Bbauska was in the military, not sure if he was "in the trenches" with them or not so his opinions are valued a bit more but I still defer to those who were actually there.

This is not MY idea or opinion, heck, my personal opinion is the same as Bbauska's. But if an expert says it's a distraction, then I'm backing off that idea! But I guess you guys know so much more????

I did not say standards should be lowered. But we're going to have to take the upper echelon of physically fit women and get them ready for combat. And it may be that we have to put those select women into more intensive training than we have to do with men to make sure they are combat ready. I am ok with that. But I have never said anything about lowering standards. What I said was the study was not a fair test of whether women (or some women) have the capability of being in combat.

And Tom the fact that someone might have expertise is something to consider, given the circumstances. But there are military people who say women can perform adequately in combat and those who disagree. So how are you going to choose? In any case I don't know that personal, anecdotal experiences where women did not pull their weight (whether in the military or police) are all that helpful in determining whether some women can do so.

I was stationed with women aboard a vessel. It was workable, but a distraction in some cases. I remember a female officer crying because she had to shoot the shotgun and it hurt her shoulder. In my 20 years of weapons training she was the only one who cried and dropped the weapon.

I also remember a woman pulling me out of the water in Alaska after the dry-rotted ladder broke.

I am fine with PEOPLE being in combat roles. I want PEOPLE who are qualified and can achieve the standard required.

I had to pass them to be boarding qualified. The women had to do that as well. Sounds equal to me.

Needless to say, the shotgun lady did not qualify for boardings...

How was it not a fair test? Because the woman did not prepare? What about the man who did not prepare, and failed?

bbauska wrote:Do you agree that the standards should be the same?

Outside the military we use different standards for almost everything. A tank, Jeep, a tractor trailer are all vehicles. Should they each have the same standards? Of course not, because they have different strengths and abilities. Same with people. In the work world we understand that, we have different people with different strengths and that's a good thing, makes everyone better then the sum of their parts. But no room for such radical thinking in the military, I guess.

Given your belief in equal treatment of people I did not think you would be against women in combat if they could do it. You are extremely consistent, Brad.

You make an interesting point, George. I imagine that there is something being lost if you're excluding half of the population from combat. I thought we are in the Information Age but apparently in the military it's still critical that you lug 100 pound packs for 20 miles.

But that is not the issue, Geo. This is about a certain type of qualification. We are talking about COMBAT Standards. Certainly there is need for non-combat roles that would meet the qualification levels of many people. We are talking about a specific need of the military. Your analogy of a jeep vs a tractor trailer is somewhat misleading.

Your analogy breaks down if you are expecting a jeep to tow a 6000 Kg trailer down the I-5 at 100Km/hr without difficulty. We are not talking a Ford Metro, Chrysler Geo, or even a Chevy Cavalier. We are talking combat. It is a specific need. There are standards, and I am fine with anyone who meets the standards serving.

I did not say that Freeman was suggesting reducing the standards, and I am glad to hear that he supports maintaining them for the purpose of combat readiness.

BTW, Thanks for noticing my consistency. It is a great compliment you gave. Thank you.

danivon

Also, there are examples now of women in combat roles.

Here's a list of the countries that allow women in front-line combat positions. In Europe: Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania and Sweden. Elsewhere: Australia, Canada and New Zealand in the Anglosphere; plus Eritrea, Israel, and North Korea.
And here are the countries that allow women in positions such as fighter pilots. Pakistan, Serbia, South Africa, South Korea, the United Kingdom and the United States, at least until Panetta's change takes effect.
Formally, American servicewomen who want to serve in combat may do so only in support roles, although a number of those women do end up seeing combat. Women may also hold serious but non-frontline jobs, such as flying fighter jets or staffing ballistic submarines.

gmtom

nd you failed to answer the argument.
If gays and women are a distraction, then what do you do?

This same argument was used to try and keep women out of law school, and medical scholl and all kinds of professions.
Trained competent soldiers do not allow themselves to be "distracted" .
Trained competent offficers do not tolerate distractions.
Women can be excellent combat troops.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nichola_Goddard

[quote="freeman3"]Yes, I can believe what I like and it's going to be based on the available evidence. By the way, the Army flat out denied the People Magazine story./quote]

Duh. Of course the Army denied it.

However, People had several sources. I've seen no refutation of that. And, I know how the system works. Someone "above" has an idea. Those "below" are pressured to make it work. It's as old as bureaucracy.

bbauska wrote:I am fine with PEOPLE being in combat roles. I want PEOPLE who are qualified and can achieve the standard required.

Sure.

Now, do you want "People" who do not want to be in combat roles? (i.e. women drafted)

Do you want "People" for whom the standards are lowered?

Do you want "People" for whom the entire military must be brainwashed (i.e. transgendered)?

In each case, it is the desire of the Obama Administration team of social engineers.

Again, I'm happy Mattis will be at DoD because he understands the military's role is to kill the enemy in the most efficient manner possible, not to make the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines more "diverse." That is a useless goal. If "diverse" in any way inhibits cohesion or lethality, it is a deleterious as well as useless goal.

freeman3 wrote:I thought we are in the Information Age but apparently in the military it's still critical that you lug 100 pound packs for 20 miles.

Because blogs don't kill the enemy; bullets do.

I said people because of the car analogy.

If you are in a service that requires you to be in a combat role, then you must ALL be qualified for that role.

EVERY person in that service should be qualified at the same standard. Otherwise one sector of the service gets different treatment and duties. That is inequality.
EVERY person in the military is responsible for the actions they commit.
EVERY person is subject to the UCMJ. Violate that and face the repercussions.

Simple.

bbauska wrote:I said people because of the car analogy.

If you are in a service that requires you to be in a combat role, then you must ALL be qualified for that role.

EVERY person in that service should be qualified at the same standard. Otherwise one sector of the service gets different treatment and duties. That is inequality.
EVERY person in the military is responsible for the actions they commit.
EVERY person is subject to the UCMJ. Violate that and face the repercussions.

Simple.

Sure, but you didn't answer my questions.

Doctor Fate wrote:Now, do you want "People" who do not want to be in combat roles? (i.e. women drafted)

Do you want "People" for whom the standards are lowered?

Do you want "People" for whom the entire military must be brainwashed (i.e. transgendered)?

If there is a draft, they should all be equally treated.
The standards should not be lowered.
The transgendered is a difficult issue. I do think the transfer timeframe is problematic, and should be not part of the military. Get the surgery completed, and proceed with life; if that is in the military, then so be it.

I hope that helps.

bbauska wrote:If there is a draft, they should all be equally treated.
The standards should not be lowered.
The transgendered is a difficult issue. I do think the transfer timeframe is problematic, and should be not part of the military. Get the surgery completed, and proceed with life; if that is in the military, then so be it.

I hope that helps.

It answers the question. Thank you.

I just don't agree. I don't believe women should be in the draft--and I'll not apologize for it.