Send Women into Combat in Iraq?

Should U.S. Send Women into Combat in Iraq?

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/art...capitolq&a.htm

Since the Persian Gulf War, women have been put into more forward positions in the military for the first time: combat aircraft, front-line engineering units. Do you support sending American women into combat in Iraq?

Rep. Albert Wynn (D.-Md.): I believe that if women train for combat, and pass all the necessary qualifications, yes, they should be able to fight in combat.

Would you support a bill requiring women to register with the Selective Service, the way men have to at age 18 now?

Wynn: Yes. I believe that we’re at a point in time in our country where there’s essentially equality of the sexes. We’re certainly striving toward that. And with all rights come responsibilities, and I believe it would be appropriate for women to have to register.

Since the Persian Gulf War, American military women have been assigned for the first time to combat aircraft and front-line engineering units. Do you support sending American women into combat in Iraq?

Sen. Zell Miller (D.-Ga.): Nope

***********************************

What do you think? Send trained woman into action? Include woman in a draft if one became necessary?

No one should have to go to war Espically women. Theres a lot of "MOS" jobs in different services and most of the battle women are not allowed!

I once saw a button that said "We want equal Rights, not special treatment." That rings true for me.

I'm for having women get drafted. If we want full equal treatement and respect, we should be willing to do all the things that men do, including fighting in the front lines and getting drafted if need be (though I am quite againts the war that our nutty president is asking for).

Just my opinion

::Chelle::

Back in desert storm if a woman didn't want to deploy all she had to do was become pregnant. It boggles the mind on how many girls did this, just so they wouldn't deploy.

Not to bad mouth all the woman soldiers who did deploy and served with honor. I have nothing but respect for them as well as my male counterparts.

Nathan

Ihave to agree with Green Bird
I would rather send the politicians :)
Regards
Mike

anyone else noticed all the recent topics on here about females? -just an observation-
Myself, i think females should have to be drafted, but then again there are simply certain things that cannot be ignored that seperate the sexes which could possibly hinder them from thier performance in the field, which the only thing i can truly think of is physique, female muscle mass developes...20% slower (i think, don't hold me on that) than the male's, so if brute strength, or even hand to hand combat for instance were to be necessary, then that's something to definetly consider. However, with the shape, and physical structure of the female, agility, stamina and speed are usually favored towards the females, so that should be factored in. Basically what I'm saying, yes women should be drafted, but there should be some consideration applied to what their duties should be and where they should be allocated in the services, but then again there are always exceptions and stereotypes to the sexes are usually defied at least somewhere in the world. *picks up the remaining three pennies up off the floor* :)

****I'm not sexist, and all for equal rights****
But IMHO, women are generally more gentler,kinder than men. But if they WANT to be drafted and go to war...let'em. Just like if men WANT to be drafted and go to war.
On a side note, I read somewhere that they have or are trying pass a bill for bringing back the Draft, I'll post a link if I find it.

erm, i believe all womyn should be made fight by draft, if there is one. just the same as men. if you are 18 male or female, you should have to register, which they do. Everyone should have to fight, if one gender does, the other would to.

Now, Titanmike, sending politicians and their offspring including to their second generation *first* into the wars they declare is a fine idea that will never get off the first tee, it will never be thought of aloud and the words will never be spoken in the hallowed halls of the Congress or the Senate, or the Oval Office. But the absolute certain failure of such an idea in modern times doesn't necessarily make it a bad one.
Back to the question proposed by Tedob1; there is pro and there is con, and the nature of this forum requires a certain amount of brevity. On the one hand, female soldiers have served well throughout history, and in fact have been some of the most ferocious warriors the earth has ever seen. On the other hand, the problem enters when our modern teachings tell us from age two that little sister is to be honored and protected. It wasn't long before she figured out that you could take care of any demons that came along, and it wasn't long before you figured out that if you didn't take care of the demons your buddies and upper classmates would soon quit worrying about what would happen to them if they mistreated your little sister. OK, now a quantum leap from hometown USA to bootcamp and basic airborne; your little sister is replaced by other young ladies in your class then later in your assigned unit. You all help each other, work together and develop sort of a family association. You look out for your brothers and sisters and they all look out for you. Another quantum leap now into the heat of battle; It is normal for a soldier to consider, but fight like hell to prevent, his environment in the event of capture. In fact, there is a considerable amount of realistic training on what to expect and how to endure capture by enemies. For a bunch of guys, it's we're all in this together and we all get the same treatment after the last round is fired and there is no way out. But you add little sister into the equation and there is a different type of mental stress for the guys. Sure, you girls can say you don't need any baby-sitters, and you are *not* our little sister, and that is not what i'm suggesting here. i'm just saying there is a additional level of stress for the average soldier when the troops are mixed in the forward areas and there is a possibility of, or an actual, capture of our female troops. Having said that, and hoping the reader can realize what i'm saying instead of getting their backs up and getting all huffy, i have to repeat: Women have been some of the most ferocious warriors in history. I'd sure hate to meet an enemy female hand to hand that had a couple shots of tequila and a bad attitude. . . . :D

My wife is currently serving in Operation Enduring Freedom... And she is due to come home after six months in Afganastan ... that being said... IMO women should have to register just as their male counter parts... Women however should not be placed into combat line units by any means (I believe my wife could kick the crap out of just about any guy in her unit and believe me she is 110% woman) mainly because men have been taught since childhood that they are suposed to protect women and keep them from harm... Males in the units with women in them will take chances that they wouldn't take if the unit were male only... The Israelis found that out in their war of independance... Being in combat is not a nice place to be... Most women IMO would not be able to handle the day to day stress of combat and all that it entails... If women want to serve I say more power to them... They should just serve in the support positions they hold now... they do not need to be in a foxhole to prove they have what it takes to make it in the military...

I'm going to have to disagree with the draft idea. I don't think any citizen, male or female, should have to register to fight if they don't want to. I"ve always thought the politicians should get off their comfy asses, adjust the stogie in their mouths, and go off to war, since they're so adamant about going, but don't have to fight.

But going back to the topic, if women would like to fight, they should be allowed to, just not required, as I said before.

i think it's b**********it it sucks i haven't heard that news but i can say is that it not right to have a woman on the feild woman must be loved and care not put them in the feild were they have too fight sorry for all the girlz out there but im just concern bout what will happen if in case they in crossfire...It's ok ONLY if they volunteer themself but requiring them is not right they have theitr own freedom to choose and if they choose IM REALLY PROUD for the cause of their patriotism that all and good luck to those who want to join

<quote>Most women IMO would not be able to handle the day to day stress of combat and all that it entails... If women want to serve I say more power to them... They should just serve in the support positions they hold now... they do not need to be in a foxhole to prove they have what it takes to make it in the military...</quote>

That is so incredibly sexist that it is amazing.
THe entire purpose of all military training is to to make the person capable in the stress of a combat situation.

I personally don't think anyone can "handle" the stress of combat, but if anyone can it would be a member of our military.

The social implications mentioned about men doing extra-ordinary things in order to protect women soldiers..., you don't think that a soldier would go to lengths to protect anyone? Oh they took Charles, thats to bad, let me grab this chain gun and barge in because dammit they took Sue? Umm, that person has significant issues, and probably isn't a very good soldier..., or a person.

Should women have to register...? whatever...
Should men? whatever...

I say no to both, but if yes to one, that yes to the other.

Equal Rights = Equal Risk = Equal Pay = Equal Everything

Just because we have different body parts doesn't mean that we are a completely different species... Put one standard in the military, use it for both sexes, if somebody meets those standards, do with them what you expect anyone that has met those standards do...

Dhej

From me

NO War!!!!
This World want Peace!

Yes, allow women to serve in whatever capacity they would like to. Also include them in the draft. How better to subjugate these pitiful terrorists then with women, whom they feel are lesser creatures? JMHO

Some of the things I've read on here make me scratch my head in amazement. Think about it,
take the factors of war and military out of the equation and ask yourselves, "Is a woman's life more valuable than a man's?" Instantly we think "No" but add the factors back in and suddenly we don't know. The answer is still "no".

I feel that woman should be required to register, just as a man is, and I feel they have every right to fight for our country the same as a man. Some people agree with this but want to put restrictions on what they can do..fine, there are already certain jobs women can't hold. They can't be in special forces (i.e. the Navy Seals or Army Rangers), they can't hold jobs on submarines nor do specific jobs that require them to be on the front lines. To take it a step further, IMO, I think everyone should have to serve at least 2 years of military or federal service when they turn 18. Up until 9-11, this country had lost some of its patriotism and it saddens me that it took a terrorist attack to get some of it back. I also feel that it should be a prerequisit to serve in the military before holding a position in Congress or the Presidency. It seems a little hypocritical to send the military off to war, or make decisions about their pay or deployments, when you've never walked a mile in their shoes to know what it's like.

To get back on track, people truely crack me up. They want full equality but not when it comes to the military. Why stop there? What about the women police officers or firefighters that are put in harms way on a daily basis...in times of peace? Are you saying a military man will feel the need to protect a military woman more than a male cop will feel the need to protect his female partner? I don't think so. I think it's crap we like to tell ourselves to get us off the mental hook of sending a woman to war. Women can mentally and emotionally separate themselves the same as a man and she can take a human life the same as a man.

Ok, now I'm off my soapbox. Thank your for letting me vent. Btw, I am both a woman and a veteran.

We're not just nurses, school teachers, mothers, secretaries, assistants, or whatever else you may tend to believe. We are more than capable to fight along side of men. But personally, I've always thought of war as a macho man thing anyway, just to see has the most balls and the bigger dick.

But don't fool yourself. Women are not frail, weak creatures. In fact, I think if we had more women in charge of political things (president, more than half in congress), war would not even be an option.

I say that when a woman enlists, give HER the choice of whether to serve in a support role or in a combat arm. Those not able to deal with combat will be weeded out in advanced infantry training, the same as the men who can't cut it.

If macho pride gets in the way of allowing them to serve in the infantry, there's always armor and artillery. Personally, I think women could do just as good a job as the men and, again, if they're crazy enough to want combat then they should be allowed to participate.

As how the depth of the battlefield is 5 to 10 kilometers both sides of the FLOT (forward line of troops), and combat support units are positioned within that zone, then it is a moot argument whether women should be allowed to serve in combat units. Combat support (CS) and combat service support (CSS) units are trained to defend themselves from enemy incursions behind the FLOT. Part of the defense tactics of the CS and CSS units is to attack and destroy the enemy units. THerefore, women will possibly have to attack and destroy the enemy just like men in Infantry units. My daughter Jennifer is in a military intelligence unit that will be deployed 3-5 kilometers behind the FLOT, and her unit spent the last two weeks practicing assaulting the enemy while he is behind our lines.

gluckmac, that shows how things have changed from my war, when there were no lines. In Nam, the bad guy could be in front, behind, or in the middle of us. It's a scary situation we're getting ourselves into, and my prayers go to both you and your daughter.

Whatever is begun in anger ends in shame. Benjamin Franklin

This is how I feal about wars and the draft (male or female).

Personally, I believe that as long as Selective Service is a law for men, it should be a law for women as well. In the US every man has to register at the age of 18. If he doesn't he can't work for the government, get government education loans or participate in government programs. The same rules should apply to all people when they turn 18 as long as there is a law.

As far as whether anyone should be forced to fight, today's world is different than the world as it existed during the Vietnam war. The government isn't having trouble getting volunteers for the military, so the draft isn't necessary.

I would submit that regardless of personal preference about war vs. peace, there is eventually going to be a time when it is necessary to fight.

There is eventually going to be a time when someone has to stand up to aggression and fear and put a stop it. There is eventually going to be a time when someone has to take a moral high ground and do what's right. If someone hadn't been willing to take a stand then America wouldn't be here today. If someone hadn't been willing to take a stand then there would still be slavery in America. Please don't forget the sacrifices that people made to make this discussion possible. Sometimes you have to fight to make peace.

>>Some people agree with this but want to put restrictions on what they can do..fine, there are already certain jobs women can't hold. They can't be in special forces (i.e. the Navy Seals or Army Rangers), <<

The powers that be tried to push some females through ranger school a couple of years ago. My buddy was an R.I. at the time and he was "encouraged" to let them slide through. Even though they would never gone to the ranger batt, where do we draw the line. I agree with equal opportunity and all that. But is it fair to the male troops on the front lines to put someone who isn't qualified in the name of equal opportunity.

Enlist them yes, but why the front line talk? Use what has worked before( Rosey the riveter).
But there is one field that needs to be addressed and that is spying; A few woman should sign a special form that states that their life will be at risk and the form is for the special few only.

Detox, I agree that there should be a line. If a woman is to go through training for special forces, there should be no "sliding through". In a time of war, everyone's lives depends on someone else and I sure as heck wouldn't want someone who just slid through training. When I made that statement about special training I wasn't necessarily complaining...just stating a fact.

I feel that if a woman wants to do those special jobs, she should have to do everything the man has to do and not be able to cut corners. Especially when it comes to lives being at stake. She has to pull her own weight.

No one should be able to "slide" through a course like the Rangers, SEALS, SWAT, or GReen Beret where so many lives are on the line. When you are a member of one of these teams you want to know that the people around you can perform correctly because your life might be in jeopardy otherwise. You want to know that your team mates can be counted on to be there by your side.

It seems to me unfair and illogical that women are allowed to vote and participate in a democracy that they do not have to make a commitment to defend. I feel that if someone registers to vote they should also be required to register with the selective service. Right now those women who are not in the armed forces or veterans are taking advantage of the privelidges of our democracy without having to make any commitment to defend those privelidges and rights should it become necessary. I am an 18 year old male who has registered with the Selective Service. I was proud to do so. If my country decides that it needs me to go fight and even give my life so that someone else can enjoy the rights and freedoms of being an American, I will go do it with no regrets.
That said, I think I should also point out that women serving in the front lines should not be a political decision. If a woman can pass the same physical fitness and other requirements as a man needs to pass, then she should be assigned wherever she is needed. There should be no politics involved...If standards are lowered just so women can be allowed to fight on the "front lines" (which in modern war seem to be quite blurred) then there will be more casualties based on unqualifid personnel being involved in combat.
Well, that is my $.02

There was another country that tested that (sorry,can't remember) and more males were killed because they were trying to help the females. Only the women that can pass the men's test should be in. The military is already compromising standards. The same goes with firemen. If she can't pull me out of a burning building, that risks other firemen's lives. In combat, if she is lagging behind because of the weight of the backpack that, will cause other soldiers lives. What if she's taken prisoner? She will probably be raped plenty.

The Marines have a saying "When you're ready for a wife, we'll assign you one."

Anyone know the statistics for pregnancy in the military? Each naval vessel averages 25 pregnancies a year. The navy should not have to be equipped to deal with this. Women are not even allowed on a submarine for just this reason.

Men are distracted by women in the same way that women are distracted by men, and this is only heightened during periods of stress and high emotions.

If women want to serve I don't believe they should be put on the same front line as men, if they want to crusade and make some all woman front line, fine I suppose.

I don't even believe a married individual should be allowed to serve in the military. When your commanding officer tells you to jump on a grenade, you want that soldier to be thinking about following orders and not about his family at home. That kind of thing can get a lot of people killed.