LOC Veteran Posted May 19, 2005 Veteran Share Posted May 19, 2005 Yeah, our Government is SO in touch with the people: WASHINGTON (AP) -- Women in the military would be barred from serving in direct ground combat roles, under a House bill that sets Defense Department policy and spending plans for the upcoming budget year.The House Armed Services Committee approved the overall measure early Thursday on a 61-1 vote. The same committee in the Senate passed a different version last week. The House and Senate are to vote on their respective bills next week. President Bush requested $442 billion for defense for the budget year that begins October 1, excluding money to pay for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The House bill, like the Senate's version, envisions creating a $50 billion fund for the conflicts for next year -- but provides no money for it. The measure also calls for increasing the military by 10,000 Army soldiers and 1,000 Marines, boosting pay grades for uniformed personnel by 3.1 percent and permanently providing all Reserve and Guard members access to military health care services. In a nearly 15-hourlong committee hearing, the most contentious issue was the role of women in combat. The language would put into law a Pentagon policy from 1994 that prohibits female troops in all four service branches from serving in units below brigade level whose primary mission is direct ground combat. "Many Americans feel that women in combat or combat support positions is not a bridge we want to cross at this point," said Rep. John McHugh, R-New York, who sponsored the amendment. It also allows the Pentagon to further exclude women from units in other instances, while requiring defense officials to notify Congress when opening up positions to women. The amendment replaced narrower language in the bill that applied only to the Army and banned women from some combat support positions. The Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps currently operate under a 10-year-old policy that prohibits women from "direct combat on the ground" but allows the services discretion to open some jobs to women in combat as needed. "We're not taking away a single prerogative that the services now have," McHugh said. Democrats opposed the amendment, saying it would tie the hands of commanders who need flexibility during wartime. They accused Republicans of rushing through legislation without knowing the consequences or getting input from the military. "We are changing the dynamic of what has been the policy of this country for the last 10 years," said Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Arkansas. Added Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, the committee's leading Democrat: "There seems to be a solution in search of a problem." The issue arose last week, when Republicans, at the behest of Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-California, added a provision that would have banned women from being assigned to "forward support companies." Those units provide infantry, armor and artillery units with equipment, ammunition, maintenance and other supplies in combat zones. The Army started allowing women to staff such support posts last year and says it is complying with the 1994 policy. Some Republicans aren't so sure. "The Army is confused. They're all over the place on this one," Hunter said. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Wednesday the Army is working with Congress and battlefield commanders "to find an appropriate way that's consistent with our country's view on that subject." He said the Army's attempt to reorganize and an asymmetrical front line on the battlefield muddies the issue. Rep. Cynthia McKinney, D-Georgia, cast the lone dissenting vote on the overall bill. From CNN of course. Look who the one dissenting vote is from, a woman. I wonder why. Sigh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Veteran Posted May 19, 2005 Veteran Share Posted May 19, 2005 Yeah, our Government is SO in touch with the people:From CNN of course. Look who the one dissenting vote is from, a woman. I wonder why. Sigh. 585944466[/snapback] Cynthia McKinney is the biggest idiot in the Senate. She was the one who wanted to accept the money from the Saudi priince after Guiliani declined the payment for retribution after 9/11. She would accept it on behalf of all the oppressed minorities in Amercia. :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OPaul Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 At what point did they start allowing women on the front line? There is already a bill, unless they got rid of it, that "bars" women from fighting on the front line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lav-chan Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 I don't know who Cynthia McKinney is, but the idea that women shouldn't be allowed to fight is a joke. They volunteered for the military, what the hell. BACK TO THE KITCHEN I GUESS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mAcOdIn Veteran Posted May 19, 2005 Veteran Share Posted May 19, 2005 I don't think there was ever a previous bill barring them just how it was always done and organized. Now there's alot of women in support roles who end up actually being in combat just because they happen to be there. Personally I'm all for the ban but it's easier said than done, considering all the support units that have femals that may be attached to an infantry unit when combat occurs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PseudoRandomDragon Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 I fail to see the justification for this unfair treatment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OPaul Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 I don't think there was ever a previous bill barring them just how it was always done and organized. Now there's alot of women in support roles who end up actually being in combat just because they happen to be there. 585944587[/snapback] Well I don't know if it was a bill then, but it is a DoD policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LOC Veteran Posted May 19, 2005 Author Veteran Share Posted May 19, 2005 Cynthia McKinney is the biggest idiot in the Senate. She was the one who wanted to accept the money from the Saudi priince after Guiliani declined the payment for retribution after 9/11. She would accept it on behalf of all the oppressed minorities in Amercia. :rolleyes: 585944518[/snapback] Regardless of her voting previously, I find it amazing the ONE dissenting vote was a woman. Says alot about our Senate. And indeed our Country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincent Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 Woman should serve in combat. and OT: Jessica Lynch is NOT a war hero Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mAcOdIn Veteran Posted May 19, 2005 Veteran Share Posted May 19, 2005 The justification is simple. One it's logistical, women require different stuff in the field than men. That's all great and dandy in the rear when you can get all the supplies you need but in the front it's sometimes not available. The physical aspect of it is still there somewhat although with transportation it's not as big of a factor as it would have been in WW 2. Two it's an emotional nightmare and this will never ever be fixed because it's psychological. A guy doesn't like seeing his best friend get cut down but imagine it was a woman, that affects the hell out of you. The last thing we need is more pregnancies on the front wouldn't that be great? War doesn't always bring out the best in guys either, I'd hate to be one of the few women around a few of these guys after they've been away from home for 8 months, they might expect something. Jealousy would be a bitch to deal with in the front as well. What if she dumps you for some other guy in the unit? I guess you have your new volunteer for the LPOP 2 miles from your position lol. Or you could just kill her new guy in the confusion of combat. Look at Jessica Lynch, oh my God a woman was captured do everything, but if it were a guy it'd be just another day. Women getting killed too greatly affects the national opinion about a war. It's not soo much that women can't do it, but it needs to be one sex or the other. it is discrimination but it has to be there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rumbleph1$h Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 I agree with the bill. There are tons of 'non-infantry' positions women can hold in the military. Unless we are in dire need of filling combat positions, putting women in these roles only serves to weaken our military. We've all seen the public opinion polls showing a great deal of concern for women casualties in Iraq. Men in combat positions would follow instincts and try to 'protect the women'. Many (or most) women are physically incapable of the rigorous activities combat duties require. We would be forced to provide more men to make up for the physical shortcomings of most women. We've seen this happen time after time again in other areas (i.e. firefighting, police forces). This is nothing 'sexist' or opressive. Facts are facts. If we want a strong military, we should not taint it by using it as a PR machine to appease every special interest group. Military operations and war are serious things. We should stick to whatever produces the best results - NOT conduct social experiments and yield to agendas of appealism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.... Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 I am suprised so many people are outcrying this bill. I am 100% behind it. No, they don't belong in the kitchen, but they certainly don't belong in the front lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rumbleph1$h Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 Regardless of her voting previously, I find it amazing the ONE dissenting vote was a woman. Says alot about our Senate. And indeed our Country. 585944631[/snapback] First off, its the House, not the Senate. There are ~70 women currently serving in the House. What about all the women who voted in support of the bill? What exactly does it say about our country? :huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincent Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 No, they don't belong in the kitchen, but they certainly don't belong in the front lines. 585944706[/snapback] yea, but why :huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lav-chan Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 Many (or most) women are physically incapable of the rigorous activities combat duties require.585944693[/snapback] I don't know about the other arguements against it, but this one is nonsense. The military wouldn't let an incapable man go into combat duties. There is no reason to think that just because women are allowed to fight in combat the military is just going to throw any female that comes along onto the line. Obviously they would have to go through the training and prove that they're up for it, just like anybody else would. Oh well. I guess 'because men are ######' is a better reason for keeping women out of the military than 'because women belong <insert some other stereotypical place>' is. Only a little bit though. :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LOC Veteran Posted May 19, 2005 Author Veteran Share Posted May 19, 2005 Because ripgut, the men feel threatened by the women. Because as we all know, women can't kill as good as us men. Because as we all know, women have emotions that would prevent them from blowing up some objective or something. Because women have PMS and PMS would cause a drop in effectiveness every month. Face it people, the US is assbackwards when it comes to alot of things in this world. Sexuality, gender relations come to mind. If the Israeli army can have women for years in positions of combat, then why can't we? If a woman can be the head of a major country, why can't we? Because, we're years behind others. We can't step out from the shadow of *insert arguementative thing here* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincent Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 women are physically incapable of the rigorous activities combat duties require. We would be forced to provide more men to make up for the physical shortcomings of most women. 585944693[/snapback] That is the most lames arguments i've heard from a member here yet, and i've seen alot. Please provide some proof, that females are incapable of the duties required in combat. I personally think if women can train for the olympics they can sure as hell train well for combat as well as participate. but like LOC says it must be cause of PMS, and being more emotional than men. :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MR_Candyman Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 I think they'd make the best troops on the front, what with the claws and the biting... ok, I'll be serious now...the claws, the biting! the mood swings to cause them to fight each-other, confusing the enemy! edit: just thought I'd make it clear that I am joking about this...cuz I know a few people in particular that will argue with me about this for years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rumbleph1$h Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 That is the most lames arguments i've heard from a member here yet, and i've seen alot. Please provide some proof, that females are incapable of the duties required in combat. I personally think if women can train for the olympics they can sure as hell train well for combat as well as participate. but like LOC says it must be cause of PMS, and being more emotional than men. :rolleyes: 585944934[/snapback] Funny how you cut off the part where I said 'many (or most)'. Hey - I can't blame ya - I can see how it's convenient to manipulate what I say to make me the 'bad guy' here. :rofl: I'd like to hear one solid argument which suggests men and women are physically equal. :rolleyes: As Martin Binkin says "Size, muscle and bone mass, fat distribution, joints, heart and lung size, oxygen content and uptake, hemoglobin content, body temperature, and sweat-gland functions all favor men". Sorry, it's really not very controversial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OPaul Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 That is the most lames arguments i've heard from a member here yet, and i've seen alot. Please provide some proof, that females are incapable of the duties required in combat. I personally think if women can train for the olympics they can sure as hell train well for combat as well as participate. but like LOC says it must be cause of PMS, and being more emotional than men. :rolleyes: 585944934[/snapback] From the report of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces (report date November 15, 1992, published in book form by Brassey's in 1993): "The average female Army recruit is 4.8 inches shorter, 31.7 pounds lighter, has 37.4 fewer pounds of muscle, and 5.7 more pounds of fat than the average male recruit. She has only 55 percent of the upper-body strength and 72 percent of the lower-body strength? An Army study of 124 men and 186 women done in 1988 found that women are more than twice as likely to suffer leg injuries and nearly five times as likely to suffer [stress] fractures as men."Further: "The Commission heard an abundance of expert testimony about the physical differences between men and women that can be summarized as follows: "Women's aerobic capacity is significantly lower, meaning they cannot carry as much as far as fast as men, and they are more susceptible to fatigue. "In terms of physical capability, the upper five percent of women are at the level of the male median. The average 20-to-30 year-old woman has the same aerobic capacity as a 50 year-old man." From the same report: "Lt Col. William Gregor, United States Army, testified before the Commission regarding a survey he conducted at an Army ROTC Advanced Summer Camp on 623 women and 3540 men. ?Evidence Gregor presented to the Commission includes: "(a) Using the standard Army Physical Fitness Test, he found that the upper quintile of women at West point achieved scores on the test equivalent to the bottom quintile of men. "© Only 21 women out of the initial 623 (3.4%) achieved a score equal to the male mean score of 260. "(d) On the push-up test, only seven percent of women can meet a score of 60, while 78 percent of men exceed it. "(e) Adopting a male standard of fitness at West Point would mean 70 percent of the women he studied would be separated as failures at the end of their junior year, only three percent would be eligible for the Recondo badge, and not one would receive the Army Physical Fitness badge?." From Military Medicine, October 1997, which I got from the Pentagon's library:(p. 690): "One-third of 450 female soldiers surveyed indicated that they experienced problematic urinary incontinence during exercise and field training activities. The other crucial finding of the survey was probably that 13.3% of the respondents restricted fluids significantly while participating in field exercises." Because peeing was embarrassing. Or, (p. 661): " Kessler et al found that the lifetime prevalence of PTSD in the United States was twice as high among women?" Depression, says MilMed, is far commoner among women, as are training injuries. Et cetera. http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/womenincombat.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lav-chan Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 It doesn't matter whether they're physically equal. An incapable woman would not be let out on the battle field any more than an incapable man would. If thirty weak, useless women joined up, the army is not just going to be like OH, WELL, THEY'RE WOMEN, WE BETTER STICK THEM UP THERE REGARDLESS OF THEIR ABILITIES. ... Unless i'm over-estimating the sensibility of the military. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincent Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 Funny how you cut off the part where I said 'many (or most)'. Hey - I can't blame ya - I can see how it's convenient to manipulate what I say to make me the 'bad guy' here. :rofl: I'd like to hear one solid argument which suggests men and women are physically equal. :rolleyes: As Martin Binkin says "Size, muscle and bone mass, fat distribution, joints, heart and lung size, oxygen content and uptake, hemoglobin content, body temperature, and sweat-gland functions all favor men". Sorry, it's really not very controversial. 585945013[/snapback] The olympics are where men and women are physically equal. :sleep: except MAYBE in weight lifting, but then during active combat it is not required to carry barbells now is it? ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rumbleph1$h Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 The olympics are where men and women are physically equal. :sleep:except MAYBE in weight lifting, but then during active combat it is not required to carry barbells now is it? ;) 585945071[/snapback] Forgive me if I'm being ignorant or naive here, but I can't even see how men and women are physically equal in the olympics. They specifically have separate men's and women's teams for the events, and in the majority of them, the men's and women's scores vary dramatically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mAcOdIn Veteran Posted May 20, 2005 Veteran Share Posted May 20, 2005 It doesn't matter whether they're physically equal. An incapable woman would not be let out on the battle field any more than an incapable man would. If thirty weak, useless women joined up, the army is not just going to be like OH, WELL, THEY'RE WOMEN, WE BETTER STICK THEM UP THERE REGARDLESS OF THEIR ABILITIES.... Unless i'm over-estimating the sensibility of the military. 585945034[/snapback] You are completely wrong. Since we have a volunteer Army what you get is what you get, there have been many times in my unit where we were actually understaffed, then there were also several times where we had people that were totally useless but we just couldn't get rid of them yet because when it came right down to it we had no-one else. Now that was bad enough in a company of 130 men to have 4 ****bags who you had to carry with you, now lets say they allow women in. If only a few percent of women can barely meet the men in terms of performance how many do you think are just barely going to squek through training just to be lead weight at thier unit? And as hard as it is to get rid of 3 male ****bags just because you're understrengthed how hard do you think it would be to get rid of 6 women? And lets not even get into the threat of sexual harrasment, women hold a TON of power in the military with that card, so much that I've seen people brought down in support units on all kinds of charges that could never even be proven. There was definately a fear of "the sexual harrasment card" in several of our units that had mixed gender, I'm just glad I was infantry so I didn't have to deal with it first hand. Fact is is that the military is easy to get into, the Army has the lowest qualifications when it comes down to the ASVAB, basic training errs on the side of passing you and makes the burden of weeding people out the units responsibility. Which means people that shouldn't be deployable do infact become deployable and considering that you don't go to war on your time people that shouldn't go, go. Israel does not have a volunteer Army, if we set up our military with a more communist approach then we'd be able to control combat effectiveness better, however we give our people the right to choose a guaranteed job, which means we get alot of people in positions that they want but aren't actually suited for. And I'm suprised you didn't argue any of my other points on the last page, as I think they are just as valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted May 20, 2005 Veteran Share Posted May 20, 2005 Women can serve in the front lines of the Canadian Armed Forces. There were about 56 tank girls last time I checked. They get stationed for active peacekeeping duties and whatnot. They serve on submarines and ships. Canadian women were on the ground in Afganistan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts