It appears that President Obama, Leon Pinetta (Def.Sec) and Gen. Dempsey (JCS) are excited over instituting a Combat Infantry Roll for our Women in the military. I certainly hope these men did not make their their decision on “Band Wagon Appeal” only?
I would regret to hear of our women being captured and imprisoned specifically, by our present enemy, that being the Taliban and Jihadist “Crazies.” Any smart person would know how those extreme elements treat their own women. I wonder how American citizens (less the self serving politicians) would react to that afore-mentioned situation.
I might suggest that any decision to put our women in the “trenches” be made by the Congressional vote, not done by “Obama’s change Legacies.”
Jeannie Rivard
Chandler
JMJ posted at 2:46 am on Wed, Jan 30, 2013.
The rolls you're talking about are served at a coffee shop. Probably by women in subservient roles. They may even be barefoot.
Women are already out there fighting in this present war. If women pass the same quals as men, physically as well as professionally, they should be able to serve. The "change legacies" to which you refer are long overdue. Don't look now, but even the BSA [uh, that would be Boy Scouts of America] are going to blindside everyone pretty soon with equal opportunity for all. Must have been hit where it hurts--donations are down. "Social consciousness" is up. It's also Panetta, not Pinetta.
And, the women who are currently serving would stand up and defend your right to say all the dumb things you just said. With their lives.
JMJ posted at 3:03 am on Wed, Jan 30, 2013.
The rolls to which you refer are served in coffee shops. By subservient women who may or may not be barefoot. Probably not. Health code and all that.
Women have served and are serving alongside their brothers [and sisters] in arms. It's time for parity, not only in pay but in opportunity for promotion. If women are physically and professionally able to serve in combat capacity, then, so bet it. It's time they were given the opportunity.
Don't look now, but the "designer social legacy" is about to slap your other cheek with the announcement that the BSA [uh, the Boy Scouts, not the other BSAs...] is going to drop a bombshell on the rest of the already-disturbed kerfuffle of equal opportunity that is raging that they "may" allow gay boy scouts to be, well, boy scouts. Wink, wink, wink, there are already gay boy scouts in the ranks. Shock and awe.
And, women and men who serve, freely and openly, now, in the military would defend your right to be afraid that someone else might actually have an equal opportunity just like you. With their lives.
Cerulean posted at 7:59 am on Wed, Jan 30, 2013.
JMJ, [thumbup][thumbup][thumbup]
DonMey posted at 10:03 am on Wed, Jan 30, 2013.
JMJ - I agree, providing women actually do pass the same quals as men. Not the lesser standards they have to pass now, which were instituted on the basis that women weren't in combat roles, and the greater physical standards were limiting their ability to serve in other capacities.
Something tells me I won't be seeing feminists insist they be graded on the same curve as men, they'll still insist on their own special curve. And push to be included in the draft? Yeah, right.
JMJ posted at 11:36 am on Wed, Jan 30, 2013.
I agree, too, DonMey, because it will not do anyone any favors to have women pass a lesser standard of physical ability. There are some very athletic young women out there who are equally fit and can stand head and shoulders with the men. They already do. I would expect they wouldn't want a combat billet unless they can do the same job. No slack. That's what makes it equal. We do no one favors with quotas of any kind. Period.
One of the young women in my family is the only combat decorated Marine vet from Iraq in the family due to taking mortar fire in Fallujah. The others, who continue to serv,e have not attained that distinction...yet.
I pray for all of our troops, male and female, every single day.
Semper Fi and Go Navy!
JMJ posted at 11:37 am on Wed, Jan 30, 2013.
PS Sorry for the double-posting, earlier. This site is just coming into the 17th Century--no ability to know if anything posts, if it is lost in a cloud, somewhere, or if someone just wasn't awake at that time of day.
Peace. Soon.
DonMey posted at 3:17 pm on Wed, Jan 30, 2013.
Leon - If a militant is firing back at targets based on their gender instead of the threat level, that's a losing strategy for them; I don't see them caring if the soldier was male or female, as long as it was "western".
And I don't buy into the POW treatment either. Your life can be made a living hell whether you are a woman or a man.
JMJ posted at 5:58 pm on Wed, Jan 30, 2013.
Leon, as usual, you betray your...well, diminuativenes... in thought. Young men and women are already serving, and, trust me, the women and men can hold their own regarding "getting rid of tension" by anyone around them who needs to spew now and then. It's almost as though you're giving soldiers and Marines some kind of excuse to be lewd and crude, a "boys will be boys" inference for lack of a better description.
You're laughable, you old Froot Loop.
JMJ posted at 8:34 pm on Wed, Jan 30, 2013.
LOL! So glad I finally got to you, Leon. You have way too much time on your hands for me to disclose my name to the likes of you. The only thing we have in common is that we agree that the "east valley excuse" is as lame in 2013 as it was in the 60's.
Otherwise, I rarely, if ever, agree with you on anything.
The Tea-tards, Ateam1 aka Leon, is you. It ain't never gonna be me by a country [USA, of course...] mile.
Psych!
Abstract01 posted at 10:17 pm on Wed, Jan 30, 2013.
It doesn't matter whether our captured troop is female or male; the torture, rape and/or beheading are equally applied by our enemies (the ones that the administration says are on the run).
If you think about it, hoping for "special consideration" for female troops is just as sexist as the attitude of the playboy addict- at least it is if you suppose that there is no difference between male and female identity.
JMJ posted at 11:13 am on Thu, Jan 31, 2013.
Leon, you already served with gays, just didn't maybe know it. Women are serving and have served in some capacity in every war we've had the pleasure [?????] of having in these United States.
Your era is over, old man. Stew about that, all day long.
If you're stopped by a female police officer, do you actually stop, or do you ignore her? Trying giving her your chauvinistic lip, face to face. You're locked and loaded in your own mind.
Thank you for your service, Leon. And, thank a woman soldier, Marine or police officer the next time you see one. That's your penance for today.
VofReason posted at 1:41 pm on Thu, Jan 31, 2013.
If women desire to be equals and be in combta, I think they should be able to. I agree, it will be difficult to maintain lines between men and women. They will likely rethink once a few woman get pregnant on the front lines.
Dale Whiting posted at 5:44 pm on Thu, Jan 31, 2013.
I recall vividly when women were first allowed into my field, Explosive Ordnance Desposal, EOD or the Bomb Squad. We dealt with IED's improvised exposive devices. I suspect that women are as competent today to deal with IED's as was anyone I knew 35 years ago. I rated a female second lieutenant. Her failing was not technical competence, it was leadership of an all male unit of subbordinates. She let me know she had lost all interest is staying.
But today may be different. We have an all volunteer army and with the end of don't ask, don't tell, we have full disclosure so no one need hide. If a woman wants to do what once was viewed as a man's work, more power to her. Let her give it a try.
Ateam1 posted at 8:41 am on Sun, Feb 3, 2013.
AH! I see the EVT is at it again! LOSER MEDIA![thumbdown]