|
Post by jerryfmcompushaft on Aug 27, 2012 14:51:59 GMT -5
The Republican Party's platform committee seeks to end "social engineering" in the military at the expense of preparidness.
Mitt Romney does not bring up President Obama's social revolution inside the armed forces, but the Republican Party platform, by calling an end to "social experimentation" in the ranks, does. The platform also backs the current ban on women serving in direct ground combat units, as the Obama administration is moving toward a decision to remove the prohibition before the November election. The Republican National Committee on Resolutions, meeting last week in Tampa, Fla., approved a plank that states: "We support the advancement of women in the military, which has not only opened doors of opportunity for individuals but has made possible the devoted, and often heroic, services of additional members of every branch of the Armed Forces." Elaine Donnelly, who directs the Center for Military Readiness and attended the platform markup, said the language sends a strong signal to those who would sacrifice military preparedness to advance social policies. "We reject the use of the military as a platform for social experimentation and will not accept attempts to undermine military priorities and mission readiness," the platform states. "For the past 3½ years, President Barack Obama has recklessly used the armed forces for unprecedented social experimentation and political payoffs to his liberal base," Mrs. Donnelly said. "Republicans meeting in Tampa have said loud and clear: ‘The time for pushing back starts now.' " Want to read more ?
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Aug 27, 2012 21:39:24 GMT -5
I'm not adverse to women in combat - the Red Army had lots of women in combat, and they gave a good beating to the Germans.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2012 8:56:12 GMT -5
I AM opposed to women in combat on the ground. With few exceptions, woman don't have the physical strength required to do the job. Pilots, combat support, Navy, etc, no problem. In Intel, they are frequently better than men because many have the patience to see through a problem and make an excellent analysis. But would I want a woman who has to carry a 70+ lb load on her back and be expected to protect my back next to me? No.
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Aug 28, 2012 9:14:43 GMT -5
I AM opposed to women in combat on the ground. With few exceptions, woman don't have the physical strength required to do the job. Pilots, combat support, Navy, etc, no problem. I agree they should not be given special treatment. But what if those exceptions do have the physical strength required? Shouldn't they be allowed to fight alongside the men?
|
|
|
Post by jerryfmcompushaft on Aug 28, 2012 9:27:03 GMT -5
When I was the Communications Operations Officer at the Alternate Joint Command Center at Ft. Ritchie, the 1st Sgt asked me for a detail to help move a safe from the first floor to the third floor. I could NOT find six men below the rank of E5 in the entire place - all women! And they did a fine job at every position from the stereotypical feminine position of switchboard operator to the typically macho position of Tech Controler. There are many jobs that women can do well in the Military services, but, dieing should not be one of them. Call me old fashioned, but mothers (or those who could become mothers) should not be placed at the wrong end of a gun even if it could give them a better chance at promotion....
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Aug 28, 2012 9:36:43 GMT -5
But why? No one has answered that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2012 10:32:42 GMT -5
I AM opposed to women in combat on the ground. With few exceptions, woman don't have the physical strength required to do the job. Pilots, combat support, Navy, etc, no problem. I agree they should not be given special treatment. But what if those exceptions do have the physical strength required? Shouldn't they be allowed to fight alongside the men? And who determines the guidelines that specify what the strength requirements are? When you start making special exceptions, you are opening Pandora's Box (no pun intended!) Stanley, your question is good but unless you have ever served in the military in a situation where your life depended on your buddies, it would be difficult to understand my answer. Have I ever served with women who were stronger than me? Possibly, but if they were there were probably over the Army's weight restrictions. Please remember that I last served over 30 years ago and we had relatively few women in the Army. Now I think the percentage is somewhere around 13%. Times have changed and there are probably more wpmen who could meet the challenge. However, unless there was an elite unit of women who were qualified for all aspects of combat, I say no to them.
|
|
|
Post by jerryfmcompushaft on Aug 28, 2012 10:49:42 GMT -5
But why? No one has answered that. Just because they are women, Stanley, no other reason - involves chivalry and all that....
|
|
|
Post by jerryfmcompushaft on Aug 28, 2012 10:52:59 GMT -5
But why? No one has answered that. Just because they are women, Stanley, no other reason - involves chivalry and all that.... To put another slant on it -- suppose you were on patrol with your squad that included a petit, gorgous, well built blond and you came under fire. Would you not be thinking more about saving her butt than the tactical situation?
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Aug 28, 2012 14:54:34 GMT -5
I'm referring to the women who are as tough as Marines. If the female candidates are not, then yes, I'd agree with you; but, if they were ...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2012 15:13:03 GMT -5
Ok, we'll put YOU in charge of making that determination. Let's see how long you would last.
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Aug 28, 2012 20:03:04 GMT -5
You're begging the question - what if those buffaloes were as tough as men? I've seen quite a few.
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Aug 28, 2012 20:07:19 GMT -5
Swampy,
Have you ever SEEN those Russian women, built like T34s they are!!!
SJ
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Aug 28, 2012 20:42:44 GMT -5
Have you ever SEEN those Russian women, built like T34s they are!!! Exactly - so if they can lift their weight (literally), why shouldn't they be allowed into combat arms?
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Aug 28, 2012 20:54:31 GMT -5
No need to worry about them getting captured and raped.
Perfectly safe!
SJ
|
|