By The Right Scoop


It’s being reported today that Panetta will announce tomorrow that he’s eliminating the direct ground combat exclusion that prevents women from serving at brigade level if the unit will be engaged in direct combat. But Mark Levin wonders if this is just another radical egalitarian social experiment.

He was clear on his show that he’s completely against it – not because he’s a chauvinist but because we as a country don’t put our women on the front lines of battle. He asks if all the Joint Chiefs of Staff throughout the many years of our Republic all wrong? Is that what we are saying today?

Levin says that he doesn’t believe putting women on the front line of combat does anything to improve our fighting force. And he doesn’t like the dictatorial way this is being decided by Panetta – on his way out.

Listen:

About 

Blogger extraordinaire since 2009 and the owner and Chief Blogging Officer of the most wonderful and super fantastic blog in the known and unknown universe: The Right Scoop

Trending Now

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.


NOTE: If the comments don't load properly or they are difficult to read because they are on the blue background, please use the button below to RELOAD DISQUS.

  • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

    I’ve never been a feminist- even though I realize that there are many women who are capable of things I’m not. I realize too that women have served for a long time for our country and I am as grateful to them as I am any of our soldiers- but this is so wrong.
    Front lines? Really? I’m not really questioning their ability, because these women have a lot more guts than I ever have- but front lines is a whole other thing.
    I agree with Levin. This is wrong!! It shouldn’t be mandated by one guy either.
    Like dear leader’s and the rest of his administration’s ROE’s aren’t killing enough of our boys already- now they’ve got to kill our young ladies too?
    This is SO FREAKING WRONG! Bring them all home now damn it!

    • KenInMontana

      It’s an administrative decision that is actually within the SecDef’s purview. Although women have been on the “front lines” with Military Police units for more than 10 years now, the decision essentially allows them to serve in the traditional Combat Arms units. It’s voluntary for women, it’s not opening the floodgates to drafting women into the Infantry as women are not required to sign up under the Selective Service Act. That’s limited to males only, although in my opinion women should be required to register just like any young man is.

      • Orangeone

        I agree with you Ken. Women are receiving the same benefits (ie gov’t funded college, etc.) as men and should be held to the same standards. I’ll take it one step further and say that I believe all young people should be required to serve at least 2 years in the military. It would truly help give them structure and respect for authority that many are lacking during their raising. It will also instill a sense of country and realization as to why we must defend in order to retain our freedom.

        • marketcomp

          Good point, Orangeone!

        • stage9

          But they AREN’T being held to the same standards. The standards have been lowered to accommodate them. That is a fact. The Army in particular has played around with physical requirements for years now.

          • Orangeone

            By same standards I mean service requirements.  I know of a brother and sister, both went to private college and lived onsite, all paid for by our tax dollars to a tune of $250,000 each.  He had to go overseas, she spent her time in an office in Germany. These are not the same standards for receipt of the same benefits.  If women want to be treated equally, than equal it is.

            • marketcomp

              Ditto, Orangeone. Women have always been closed to combat but not on the frontlines and now they will have a chance to be in combat. Women serve in medical capacity in combatzones and transportation during times of combat and serve in a number of capacities that are right up close to combat zones. The women I know who serve in a medical capacity say they often here women other women say that they want to fight on the front lines.Now I admit not many women would want to serve in a combat capacity but of those that do want to should. I think we have women who are Navy Seals and marines and Admirals and pilots.

              • http://www.facebook.com/alec.decarlo Alec DeCarlo

                There are no female Navy SEALs

        • KenInMontana

          I prefer that our military is kept as an all volunteer force, military forces based on conscription are proven losers. Volunteers are motivated, the only thing that motivates conscripts tends to be the exit, their are exceptions to this as there are exceptions to every rule, but in the end I personally would rather serve beside someone who actually “wanted” to be there, not someone who was “forced” to be. Ask a Veteran of Vietnam what the military was like at that time, I came into the service at the end of what is “termed” the “Vietnam Era” and the men who I had the acquaintance of that had served in the RVN, (during my own service) had very little positive to say about conscripts, aside from that “they looked good leaving”.

          • Orangeone

            I understand your point but have to disagree on Vietnam. This country did not support the military, there were widespread protests against the “war”, “conflict” or whatever it was classified as and our military were blamed for it.  It might take a decade but the attitude would dissipate and people would realize they have a responsibility to serve.  If left all voluntary, then federal student loans should only go to those that have served, the rest are on their own for private financing for school.  Too many gimmes and nothing given in return.

            • KenInMontana

              You can disagree all you like about Vietnam, however the facts remain and history bears out the detrimental affects of a conscription based military versus an all volunteer force.

              • Orangeone

                History also bears out the effects from a country that did not support its military members.  And that is the #1 thing I still hear today from Vietnam Vets, it was the response when they came home, that no one supported them while overseas. Lasting effects remain.

        • M_J_S

          Right, like today’s liberals will let that happen.

          We need to start drafting young men and women in the militia.

          • Orangeone

            Good thing about the civilian militia, no drafting needed, there’s already a long line formed.

          • TexasPGRRider

            Better Hurry…B.O. started his youth brigades shortly after his first term began…search his last name with the two words “youth brigades”, and see the new world order Hitler youth growing as we speak…One of the requirements is they are forbidden to attend church services while they are a member…I HOPE someone will prove me wrong about this !!!!

      • stage9

        Except this NEW directive calls for women in SPECIAL OPERATIONS UNITS.

        I don’t think so!

        • Orangeone

          I don’t see anything wrong with women in Special Ops. Take a look at the show The Unit, end of Season 3 and Season 4. There is a role for women, thinking and logic are different and add a lot to strategic solutions.

          • stage9

            That’s not combat and those women aren’t Operators, they’re attached to the unit in a support capacity. And don’t believe everything you see on tv.

            • Orangeone

              I have no problem with women in Special Ops if they meet the physical requirements.  If you want The Unit, it is special ops and is based on real events.  There is a woman in the Unit.

              • stage9

                It’s hollywood. There are no female operators.

                • Orangeone

                  It’s based on real Special Ops not make believe.

                • stage9

                  ok. If you say so.

                • Orangeone

                  That’s the only reason why I watched it and it’s actually very well done.

          • aposematic

            O.K. this thread is starting to get to me. I have never met a woman that could get through the first week of S.O. training; heck, I have only ever met a few men that could. Just saying all things being equal is in the real world never gonna happen. This is the real world after all.

            • Orangeone

              If the women cannot make it through the training then they should be out. I do not believe in lowering the bar for gender or for race. The bar to qualify should be set and remain at that level or raised depending on the risks of service.

        • KenInMontana

          If they are qualified, desire to serve, and can pass the same training under the same standard, I have no issues with it what so ever.

          • stage9

            But they can’t. Any military personnel will tell you. Women DO NOT have the same physical standards as men. Their PT test minimum requirements are lower for women than for men.

            The following chart shows examples of the minimum requirements for the Army Basic Training PFT:
            Ages 17 – 21
            Male
            Push-Ups 35
            Sit-Ups 47
            2-Mile Run 16:36

            Female
            Push-Ups 13
            Sit-Ups 47
            2-Mile Run 19:42

            • stage9
              • stage9
              • KenInMontana

                She is expressing her opinion, as well informed as it may be, does not make her correct in all cases, which is why it must be voluntary and they should be held to the same standards and training as their male counterparts. If they are going to lead combat operations of combat units that is going to necessitate exposure to the front lines.

                From what I have looked at even the PFT requirements for the Corps have been lowered, crunches instead of sit-ups, pull-ups were timed when I served (you had two minutes to do as many as you could, although they are still running 3 miles, however it looks like they have increased the max time allowed to complete it and likely are not running in combat boots any longer.

            • KenInMontana

              Reread what I said above, I am aware that the standards for males and females are different, they have been for quite a long time.

              If they are qualified, desire to serve, and can pass the same training under the same standard, I have no issues with it what so ever.

      • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

        I figured I’d get something wrong- but I still don’t like it. Sorry- I sound like a lib. OY! did I say that out loud?!

        • KenInMontana

          LOL

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IQIGXRVWW5XRETNV25R4FATCOM ssenecal5000

        It should not be voluntary

        If they are in , then they need to be treated equally

        Sign up everyone for the draft.

    • proudhispanicconservative

      There is a great show on Netflix, is done by discovery and the name of the show is “surviving the cut”, it’s a great way to see what our soldiers have to go through in their training, it is really intense, and 70% of them do not make it, that’s why I do agree with Mark Levin that this is not going to work. Nice ti see you my greatamericanbornincanadafriend.

      • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

        I’ve seen a few training videos and I admit freely here for all the Scoop world that I’d never make the first cut.
        Nice to see you too myproudhispanicconservativefellowmiltarylovin’friend!

        • proudhispanicconservative

          Yes I admit I would not survive the cut, Thats why my love for our men and women of the military is so deep, myalsomilitarylovingamericanbornincanadafriend. Lots of love for you.

          • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

            Same here. I have strong legs, but my arm strength has never been much other than kneading bread dough ;-) I am in awe of those who serve and what they can and do endure. Have a Blessed evening my incrediblysweetproudhispanicconservativemilitarylovin’patrioticdearfriend!! :-D

    • TexasPGRRider

      This action by no means is intended to strengthen our military. It is intended to WEAKEN our military by creating “second thoughts”, confusion, and guilt among those who give others orders…

  • Sober_Thinking

    We must be WAY down in our recruitment.

    I’ve served with many capable women in my 20 years of Air Force life. But nearly all of them wouldn’t want to go fight on the ground… hand-to-hand or to be put in a situation where they could be captured and brutalized. Most of them weren’t wired that way – to fight eye-to-eye with the enemy.

    As a former Master Sergeant… it would destroy me if one of my direct reports were hurt or captured. It would ruin me if that person under my command was a woman. I’m personally wired to go out of my way to protect and care for women. I can’t help it… I would go out of my way to prevent that from happening… even in a reckless manner.

    I’m 100% against this. Women can proudly and very effectively serve from the air or through an electronic frontier (or in other less direct manners)… but I can’t take it if they were on the ground, on the front lines… It feels fundamentally wrong to place them there.

    One other small factoid. We were heavily involved with members of the U.S. Army who were always parachuting out of planes… usually with gear that ranged from 60-100 lbs., which they were required to carry (some carried more). Many women I served with… if they met U.S. Air Force military height and weight standards were somewhere in the range of 100 – 115 lbs. On the high end of the scale, some might be up to 145 lbs. – asking them to carry 60 lbs. is not the same as asking a 215 lb. male member of the service to carry that much gear… the percentages and ratios are completely different.

    This is wrong.

    • TexasPGRRider

      This is just another way B.O. is infecting Freedom and Liberty. The traditional mindset is the target of this decision, and the confusion this will cause throughout the COC (Chain of Command) is the result they seek. It`s the next natural step after the “open gay” crap in polluting the military as we know it will….

      • Sober_Thinking

        Spot on.

    • Orangeone

      Well would you enlist with the current regime and ROE?

      • Sober_Thinking

        Good question. No… not a chance.

        With a gay-friendly regime that is pushing this on everyone, Obama’s willingness to expend American lives and taking no responsibility, green on blue murders, extended tours in hostile areas (Desert Storm was a cake-walk in comparison), with this mentality of putting women in harm’s way, with more than one threat about “not paying the military”, with sequestration, with reduced and lower benefits or after service care, with the stress military life puts on families (I have a daughter now), with idiots being appointed over the military and NATO given some control, with Obama equipping the future enemies of America, with Obama’s hatred of guns (for when I get out), I could go on…

        It’s a different world than when I served and our military is being treated like crap. No chance right now… not for me.

      • aposematic

        No way could I even imagine soldering under these nitwits and their ROEs.

    • DCGere

      Concur Sober as does my boyfriend currently serving in Afghanistan. Women on the front line is dangerous for the exact things you mention (physical, potential capture, etc). Men are hard wired differently, no matter what anyone thinks Demi Moore can do in a movie. That’s just a fact. Men do not want to see women get hurt, it would be a blow to morale, their ability to function, etc. Just my (and my bf’s) opinion :)

      • Sober_Thinking

        Please thank him for his service for me… and may God bless you both.

        • DCGere

          Thank you, much appreciated!

  • c4pfan

    Isn’t this just a step to go for the draft?

    • Orangeone

      Sounds like a great plan, let’s limit the draft to the Dem kids that voted for O in 2008 and 2012.

  • sDee

    So if you were king and your military would not wear blue helmets, what would you do?

  • marketcomp

    I remembered that women are serving in combat in Israel and I have not heard any reports.
    http://www.timesofisrael.com/panetta-opens-us-military-combat-roles-to-women/

    I wonder if Obama will allow his daughters to be drafted if that should happen or would Hillary Clinton daughter daughter be drafted if necessary. I have not heard from the feminist in the National Organization of Women. It will be interesting to hear what they have to say see the liberal women voted for Obama in droves.

    • stage9

      Women are serving in combat in Israel because they have to in order to defend their thimble sized nation which is surrounded by a billion angry terrorists who want to kill them.

      • marketcomp

        But have you heard of any adverse conditions of having them in combat. Look, I think this will change once this administration leaves because this should have gone through the legislative process but we know that Obama freely goes over the heads of Congress with no repercussions for his actions.

        • stage9

          I think Israel is a totally different scenario than placing women in a combat environment like a remote mountain base camp in AF with male soldiers. There’s enough distractions in war, they don’t need more. Not to mention the fact that accommodations will have to be made. It’s one thing to be assigned to a rear det unit where fighting is next to nill, but the side of an Afghanistan mountain is an entirely different story. And I don’t even WANT to get started with SPECIAL OPERATIONS training and mission requirements. These units are highly specialized and require close camaraderie and cohesiveness.

          This is a political ploy aimed at weakening the military. That’s why our soldiers are still over there. The longer they’re over there, the more it spreads our military thin. Add to that the sequestration which will gut the military budget; the fact that homosexuals can openly serve and now this, and what you have is a despotic president whose goal is to destroy the military who he knows doesn’t stand with him.

          • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

            I’d also assume that growing up in Israel would be a lot different than growing up in the US, unless one grew up in mean parts of Chicago or LA or some place. Having to deal with things like putting on gas masks, drills and running for bomb shelters, being on constant look out for terrorists… women grow up needing to know how to fight over there. Over here, women (not the smart ones) tend to think more of what so in so is gonna wear to the red carpet this year.

            • TitaniumEagle

              Speaking of which, what are you wearing on the red carpet this year?

              • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

                lol what the he!! is a red carpet? ;-) Ducks don’t win awards we’re too busy living real life.

                • TitaniumEagle

                  Hehehe, well, since you already admitted to talking like a liberal up (^^^) there I thought maybe you were joining their ranks in Hollywood!

                • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

                  It was a momentary lapse of sanity. ;-) I hate hollywood. Imagine- getting paid millions pretending to be other people,then giving yourself an award because of it. Only in America… yet they want to change America. go figure.
                  I hate red carpets.

                • TitaniumEagle

                  Ignoring the ridiculous agendas of > half of the people over there, they can’t come up with anything original anymore. IMO, independent films are way better in quality these days (:

                • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

                  While I hardly have time anymore to watch anything- I couldn’t agree more. :-)

            • stage9

              Yeah, of course I’ve also heard that women in Israel don’t even serve in infantry units. So, I don’t know.

              • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

                I don’t know either. Just sayin’ it’s a bit different over there than here, that they’re most likely more used to it having to grow up always facing it.
                :-/ I need to quit talkin’. Nothing I’ve said today has come out right.

                • TitaniumEagle

                  quack.

                • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

                  hmnmhm. ;-)

                • crosshr

                  you’re much fine ABiC, I don’t hear you today though ! I have read your heart, as it’s always in the right place. That I’m being assured !

                • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

                  You’re sweet brother. Thank you!

        • Watchman74

          If Israel can make it work then good for them, but I agree with stage9 that it’s probably out of necessity in order to field a large enough army for it’s small size. This is also why men in Israel are required to serve 3 years in the military and women 2 years. I don’t live in Israel so I don’t know what adverse conditions there are but because of differences in physiology, hormones and endurance, men will always been more ideal for combat.

      • aposematic

        Wonder how many you see on the front lines though. Everyone in Israel is trained in combat…its the militia.

  • proudhispanicconservative

    Panetta bread thinks he is so smart doesn’t she?

    • TexasPGRRider

      WHUDUP BRO !!

      • proudhispanicconservative

        How are you doing my constitution loving friend!!!!!

  • Alborn

    I have to say that I have mixed feelings about this. I know that there are all kinds of issues with women being on the frontline. But there may be some women who are able to be on the frontline and do a great job and are being denied the opportunity. I also think that women should have to register with selective service when they turn eighteen just like men. If you want to be treated equal then make them register. The thing with the frontline does not mean the women will have to go. Just means they will now be allowed to go in certain circumstances. But I am for bring all our military home anyway. So there would be no frontline except on the Mexico border.

  • sjmom

    This is part and parcel of what the feminazis have wrought and women have no place on the front lines of combat. The administration continues to damage our society with their policies.

  • stage9

    bump

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OQI5D66OXO7X2FE4NVCZC7BAMA Joe

    There are many females that can outperform many males

    If any PERSON can do the job – They have my vote

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

    BUT – Here it comes ! >>>

    ZERO does NOTHING without an ulterior motive

    I am sure there is some DEVIOUS reason why this decision has been made

    I wonder what HE is up to?

    If this is what Scoop says it is -an egalitarian experiment – It is sick !

    (Two new words in two days – Please stop it)

    • Orangeone

      Not reducing the whites in US fast enough.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/MVKB24PATKM3BXCRTLD62FUKK4 Richard

    The trend is for unisex.Next they will establish quota with hockey teams or man versus woman on the tennis court

    • stage9

      It’s called the masculinization of women and the feminization of men. And it’s a feminist doctrine.

      • white531

        It’s puke to me.

        • tshtsh

          Me too. I was born to late–the middle of the baby boom and I am a girlie girl. I prefer my mother’s generation. They were ladies (not perfect but) with character, strength and wisdom.

    • MadAsHellJack

      Yes Unisex to go along with the coming One World Currency and the One World Order.

      Obama and his toadies do nothing without ulterior motives.

      • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

        I just had a really hideous vision… in the brave new world all the women would look like big sis napolitano and all the men would look like peewee herman. OH I NEED my mind bleach!!!!

        • TexasPGRRider

          Maybe you need a nap…got your note…handled !!!

          • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

            Thank you :) Appreciate that! And yes- I wish I could take a nap,but I don’t have time but now that vision would give me nightmares if I dared go to bed early lol.

        • stage9

          You’re not too far off my friend. LOL! That’s the feminists’ vision.

  • drphibes

    It is not misogynistic to say that men and women are different. The scale of the cranium, for example. Because of the reduced brain size, women are at a distinct disadvantage in the field.

    • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

      Don’t start that again! lol. Knock it off doc.

      • drphibes

        :)

    • stage9

      Women in combat: “A bad idea,” says former SEAL
      http://www.chicagotribune.com/videogallery/

      • TexasPGRRider

        WOMEN + COMBAT = GET OUT OF THE WAY !!!!

  • texasgirl46

    Even though there are some women out there that are tougher than some of this generations “men”, I don’t like it. Something just doesn’t seem right about it..

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/ZVCGRG62NAGQXJ6ZNE4JCTVVTU Ray

    This was because some military woman sued to be able to be placed on the front lines. I don’t understand this, why would a woman put herself not only in danger, but all the things that will happen to them as p o w’s

  • TitaniumEagle

    I have mixed emotions, but I think that women who want to fight on the frontlines should be allowed. I fear that this is just a step towards forcing women to sign up for the draft though, which would be unequivocally wrong. No matter HOW the “feminists” want to spin it, women are different than men, especially physically. It seems that that fact is often overlooked by those who scream “SEXISM!!!!” at every turn.

    • Orangeone

      There are many male-females like Nappy that resemble male physiology more than female…..

    • c4pfan

      Where else would it go?

  • Sandra123456

    Wonder if the Muslims are getting a laugh over this. America is so weak its women must fight.

    Hate to be a captured woman soldier in Muslim hands. Probably would rape a woman several times before head sawing or stoning.

  • John3_3

    It is a coward of a country that places it’s woman in war to fight our battle for us! We have become a nation full of sissy, pathetic, spineless men! Cowards! This just weakened the nation…

  • Orangeone

    Just saw this on Twitter: “I can say this…I would rather go into combat with a woman who can use a rifle than a Candyass Liberal who’s terrified of one” gave me a smile

    • c4pfan

      It doesn’t just affect those women, but all women.

      • Orangeone

        Election Consequences

  • stage9
  • Watchman74

    I’m sure women are capable of fighting in combat however men will always be more suitable for combat if not for physical reasons alone. Men are naturally bigger, stronger, and more aggressive. Men have a larger lung capacity so they have more endurance. A male athlete will always out perform a female athlete. There’s other issues when women are introduced such as feminine hygiene concerns, the possibility of being raped if captured, and accidental pregnancies (human nature being what it is). There’s a reason why men have been the warriors of society since time immemorial. I would rather have the men bare the horrors of wars to spare the women, children, and those too old to fight. I have no problem with women serving in other capacities within the military.

    • c4pfan

      Plus, I’m not for women being drafted.

    • aposematic

      Yes, there may be exceptions but that’s why there are rules. Most people would think any man could do it, can’t think that about any woman.

      • Watchman74

        Correct, there are always exceptions but rules are not based upon the exceptions.

    • KenInMontana

      Don’t present that argument to any Celts you happen know or the Romans that faced them.

      • Watchman74

        Don’t know too many Celts or Romans around to ask ;)

  • tshtsh

    I would be like Private Benjamin (Goldie Hawn movie). My father said I could not be in the military because long baths are an essential for me. I can do wet, lather and rinse now, if vital. My sister was fine she made it through OCS–since she only had to high dive once. More power to women that want to serve but not on the front lines especially since the enemy are Jihadist not men of honor.

    The gall of Secretary Pansy–who is too frighten of guns our own military could not carry them in a war zone if he was in the room. NO he doesn’t get to make that decision!

    • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

      Well said!

  • c4pfan

    Wrong. People should not be forced to serve. The draft is a bad idea and it’s obvious that’s what the Left wants.

  • c4pfan

    Last time I looked, Panetta wasn’t an elected official.

  • stage9

    Leon Panetta only served TWO YEARS in the Army.

    Nuff said.

    • KenInMontana

      That’s two years longer than either of his bosses.

      • stage9

        True. And he’s just as qualified.

  • aposematic

    I never served with women in front line combat and very few even in a headquarters position outside a nurse or two. So I won’t comment to that. But I did serve ten years in the Gulf Coast oil fields as a logging engineer and at times some districts had women engineers. Specifically from 1985-87 there were three women engineers and 6 male engineers in this one district. One of the female engineers was as good as any of the male engineers, excepting me of course…haha, one I guess was o.k. I never worked around her, but the other female engineer was constantly having to have one of the male engineers go out and I’ll call it hold her hand to get through a job. By job I mean you as the engineer and two operators go to wells to run specific services for the Oil Company. Often the Company men, as they were called, were pure a-holes and sometimes would try to get you, the service company, to do things I’ll call not by the book. Anyway this female engineer was very smart, she just was always folding under pressure. So it depends on the female and the ability to cope and perform under pressure.

  • white531

    There are several problems with all of this. First and foremost, there are very few women in our society who are capable of killing an enemy who is in their face.

    In a leadership role, their hesitation to give the order to pull the trigger would not only get themselves killed, but all those subordinate to them.

    This will go against all that you feel good Liberals believe, but male humans are born with a killer instinct, to protect the tribe, or the village, or the country. All of your Liberal education cannot change that. It is primal. Women don’t have the gene.

    Females in nature still have it. Check any female bear in the forest with a cub, and you will find that’s true, at your peril.

    But it doesn’t exist in this upside down world the Liberals have created for us to live in.

    Women in combat roles of the Military is a huge mistake. Just one of many, that this Idiot President has made. When this is over, may he rest in Hell.

    • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

      Well said whitefriend.

    • aposematic

      In a combat field things like that get sorted out real quick, men or women is kinda irrelevant. But that was a long time ago and there is no way I could serve under any of the current crop of nitwits in charge. Except maybe Col. West, but they kicked him out for protecting his men. That says it all for me.

  • white531

    Here is the problem. The female species among us are the mothers. The nurturers. They give us life. They protect us from harm.

    How can you give these people a gun and turn them into Warriors?

    Please explain to me how you can do that?

    • stage9

      You’ll have to ask Obama, Panetta and the feminists that. Of course they don’t base their decisions on facts and reason, they base everything on an EMOTIONAL RESPONSE.

      The military isn’t a civilian office experience. There’s no one shooting at you in the cubicle across the room.

    • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

      I’ll do it if it’s ever required of me here to protect my family and friends- but in the mean time, I’ll continue to wield my “keyboard”.

    • stage9

      Language warning! — From an actual 11B

      “Except I have experience having females attached to my Infantry platoon, in combat. It was not a pleasant experience. They COULD NOT hump their own gear. They WOULD NOT stand fire watch, because ” something could happen”. Their little section leader told me ” If something happens, we will stay back here and let you guys handle it”. **** no, woman. You asked for it, and you got it. If something happens, you WILL BE up and firing your guns, or I’m kicking the **** out of you.

      They had to stop the patrols for LOOOOOOOONG security halts. They had to build a little tee-pee out of ponchos so they could ” go potty”. Yeah, that was a great thing to have come over the radio ” Hey, SSgt, can we stop for a potty break?”.

      They didn’t want to hump their own weight, so they would promise **** jobs for guys who would hump their ****, and then not deliver. They would get right up on you and push their breasts up against your arm while asking for ****.

      Villages that were our friends turned their backs on us, because we had women with us. The Taliban was trying to constantly set up ambushes with the specific intent of killing one, or better yet, capturing one. There was a $20,000 bounty for female killed, and a $50,000 bounty for a captured female.”

      • crosshr

        well expressed stage9.

        I can’t possibly imagine in a moral state of mind asking my daughter and wife or grand daughters to go to war in the front line and fight for my freedom.

        Male species are the protector and provider of a family and community. One of my friend went with me to the hospital when his wife had a baby. Before his wife gave birth to the baby this friend of mine ask me if he can go home, he’s scared of how the baby is going to be delivered. I wanted to ask the dear wife to castrate her husband when she feels well. I did not !

        Female have responsibilities they are anointed and call for and they can boldly bravely perform on those to the fullest of their most honored ability, NOT SOLDIER AT FRONT LINE. LADIES, PLEASE DON”T ASK AND LOOK FOR IT !

        At some point I thought of the mindset of the Liberals that send female to do their job as were in the contraception & Fluk by Obama and the Libs, I wonder why haven’t Obama and his male pundits in cabinet not adorn themselves with LIP STICK since they use women and children to fight their cause .

        • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

          Oh excellent comment crosshr! LOVE the last line especially- SO true!

          • crosshr

            Thank you A.

        • stage9

          You’re absolutely correct, but unfortunately we live in a godless feminized age that believes that what you just described is an archaic patriarchal mindset that is neanderthalian and needs to be forgotten.

  • David Boyes

    wait til they start coming home in body bags, and with injuries equal in number as well as severity to the men …. and we shall see….

  • white531

    Forget for a moment the importance of this post. In any event, the importance of all posts is only momentary at best.

    The only purpose of this action by Obama was to drive another wedge between the various factions that exist among us.

    He goes to sleep each evening, dreaming about how to divide America even further than he already has.

    That was the purpose of this exercise.

    • TexasPGRRider

      To be quite trite white: Smoke and Mirrors Baby, Smoke and Mirrors !!!

    • crosshr

      and has vividly become also the purpose of his existence

      what a sad human being !

  • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

    I’m willing to believe that probably 2-to-8 percent of women who serve are actually qualified, physically and mentally, to serve in combat. After all, probably some percentage of combat-approved men will, in reality, have no business being there.

    But I don’t think that you change the entire history of force readiness to accommodate such a small percentage of the population. The problems you’d introduce would introduce costs that would rob from the ability to have the best possible force.

    Of course, great men and women could overcome those costs. But you just know it would all fall to hell if we entered a large-scale war and had to startup the draft to get up to strength quickly.

    (BTW, I totally agree with Ken about the draft. Even without ever having served, I’ve seen enough of human organizational problems that I just know that one slacker can drop a unit’s effectiveness by enough to move them from killer elites, to getting them all killed.)

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_46QH3OG5IRNI2HVIYZRLBYRCWI G E

    i don’t mean anything derogotory by this…send the masculine lesbians first…they can write a point paper afterwards on the pros and cons of going into battle. libs can never leave well enough alone!
    I have a pro and con…
    Pro – males won’t hit on them
    Con – monthly cycle…all the enemy has to do is train dogs to
    pick up the scent

    • crosshr

      ouch GE, the only other time I feel I’m whacked with a 2x6x20′

      although in this mad world, worst always happen ! even if it’s lesbians, I still can’t see them in front line at war

  • rjcylon

    I guess this is a part of the War on Women™. Except I thought it was our side that was doing it. Protect women by throwing them into combat, great idea.

    • white531

      No, it’s not. Please don’t bring that garbage here and expect us to respect it as viable commentary. There is no war on women among Conservatives.

      In raising a family, both men and women each have a responsible role. Each plays a part in the very complicated process of bringing an infant child to responsible adulthood. What is there about that, which is so hard to understand?

      Men are respected for the role they play as Fathers. They are a role model for their sons, and daughters too, as they teach them responsibility and respect, not only for their immediate family, but for others they may encounter.

      Women are respected for the obvious fact that they not only give life, but they nurture life. In a word, they give birth, and then they fiercely protect that birth.

      Why then, does anyone want to try and confuse those roles?

    • white531

      My comment posted before your edit. Please disregard. No offense intended.

      • rjcylon

        Lol, no problem. I always assume people know I’m being sarcastic, but not always. :)

        Your post was great btw, I agree completely.

        • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

          Hey rjcylon- good to see you :-)

          • rjcylon

            Thanks! Good to see you too.

    • Watchman74

      Good point.

      • rjcylon

        thank you.

  • bjohnson55

    If these women were drafted there would be an issue however this is a voluntary military and if women are now included in front line units then the units need to be 100% women units. Put them out there and prove themselves and have an all male reserve unit ready to back them up. That way they are not putting any men in danger and it will prove their abilities no questions asked.

  • MadAsHellJack

    THE FUTURE OF BATTLE! ;)

    Sarge, just 5 more minutes and I’ll have my hair, makeup and uniform just right and then we can go off to war. Oh and do you think this BDU makes my ass look big? :)

    • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

      THAT made me lol! I had a friend who used to be like that whenever we’d go camping! Always wanting to bring her blow dryer along too… like there’s an outlet in the tent?!

      • tinlizzieowner

        There is a perfectly valid place for women in the military, I’m married to a Viet Nam era Woman’s Army Corps. Vet and she would be the first to say (and has said many times before), that direct combat situations, isn’t it.
        We will be dealing with Islamists for many decades to come. Islam brutalizes women as a matter of procedure. Women captured in combat will see brutality, the likes of which those who have never served in combat, can’t even imagine. This is not the time or especially the place, for liberal ‘social experimentation’.

        • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

          Totally agree tinlizzieo.. Not that POW’s have been treated brutally enough in past wars, these are a whole different breed of evil and I shudder to imagine what they’d do to a young woman soldier.

          • tinlizzieowner

            They will do everything they do to their own women, and more.

            • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

              I know. Crap do I know.

  • repubboy

    Mark.. It’s cool.. The first AMAZON DIVISION.. I think your buddy Rush had that figured out years ago..They would be deadly !!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IQIGXRVWW5XRETNV25R4FATCOM ssenecal5000

    It’s a Dem’s set up for the 2014 and 2016 campaigns,

    We should one up them and demand any person , man or women , to meet the standards of intense combat readiness at all times.
    No more conscientious observer crap. No exceptions , you have to go to battle when
    needed
    We can call it Complete Equality in the Military Act.

  • http://teapartyreaganconservative.blogspot.com/ TeaPartyReaganConservative

    #1, women on front lines of a war, is not the US Military’s main issue to solve, let alone America’s main issue to solve. Thus it is just a deflecting distracting issue to what’s really happening, which is a typical Obama diversionary tactic.

    I can’t help feeling a sense of enormous outrage, disgust, and anger at what this tyrant Obama is allowed to do, to get away with, at the expense of all patriotic American citizens, because the public has been so indoctrinated to this tyrant’s cult of personality, his marxist islamist ideology and agenda, that this Nation Republic is allowed to go down in flames.

    With the exceptions of a few individual politicians, is there no one in the GOP party leadership with the courage to stand up against Obama and his fascist liberal marxist islamist regime to lead them in a political revolt, and say enough is enough, no more !!

    This is where we are at, the occupation of our Nation’s power and authority govt in Washington DC. by America’s enemies.

    quote-
    “The Republic was not established by cowards, and cowards will not preserve it.” 
    ~ Elmer Davis~

    Thus We the People must now be the Victor Lazlos’s of our time, for our Nation Republic.

    Beside Obama’s dismantling of our US Military to defend our US National Security interests abroad, Obama is now positioning the US Military against it’s own Nation, and the very people it is established to protect. On top of his cutting everything and anything he can from the Military active duty and retired Military, from benefits, to pay allowances, to raising healthcare premiums, etc, etc, while he redistributes the American tax payer money to his crony friends, allies, and overseas entities, ie; our enemies abroad.

    This is about as Orwellian as can get, but is now reality.

    Thus, in defying and fighting this tyranny of oppression we are now forced to endure, the American People are now all “Victor Lazlos” in the fight to regain, return, and restore America back to a Nation Republic and it’s govt Of the People, By the People, For the People”.

    • stage9

      No it isn’t America’s main issue to solve, but it keeps us distracted while Rome burns.

  • Fireplug52

    So lets pretend that the House of Representatives and the Senate held hearings as to why there are not more women in the combat arms units through the Army and Marine Corps.

    The answers they are given do not satisfy those wonderful people, because they say the standards are to high and the women are not given an opportunity to succeed.

    Of course, you have figured what will be the next step in this little scenario and that will be the lowering of the standards, because as a few of the folks have already pointed out the standards for the female population in executing a physical fitness test are lower.

    I have served with many great female soldiers and officers, but if the standards for me were set and uncompromising then these female warriors then need to be held to the same high standards, not lower them. That is what I believe will be the case, they will be lowered and our ability to fight and win will be put aside for a social experiment.

  • tinlizzieowner

    Fact: Women are different then men, (thank ‘God’) except possibly for ‘women’s liberalizationists’ with gender identity issues.
    Fact: Two sexes serving together in a combat situation, will reduce combat effectiveness.
    This is all another part of Obama’s ‘Fundamental Transformation’ of America into a ‘politically correct’, socialist, utopia.

  • xjesterx

    I’m all for anyone…of either sex…who wants to fight and is CAPABLE of doing it. The problem is that the military has NEVER held both sexes to the same physical requirements. Want to become a fighter pilot as a man? Fine. One requirement is you have to do 17 pullups. As a woman? Hold your chin to the bar for 10 seconds. No pullups required to fly a fighter jet. So what is the real physical requirement??

    There are a lot of women who could best me physically, and I’m all for them serving if they meet the SAME requirements as a man. But it has never been this way. This is one thing that is never covered. Instead, whenever it’s brought up, the media rages about chauvinism…which is a real laugh. They put the very people they say they’re defending in real danger, mostly because they have no understanding of the military and look on it with disdain.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kara_Hultgreen

    Anyone remember Kara Hultgreen? There were massive charges that during the Clinton administration she was allowed to get through training and sent to fly when she was clearly not ready. This is what happens when politics rule our military… and you won’t hear one general speaking out about this either.

    • Suzyqpie

      The goal is to weaken the military. With a bonus to lawyers for discrimination law suits.

  • Nukeman60

    It started with abortions. Let’s destroy the sanctity of motherhood by accepting the fact that having a child is no longer sacred. Have all the sex you want, but never fear for conceiving, for we can make that disappear at the drop of a scalpel. Watch the population reduce itself to zero.

    Next, let’s destroy the sanctity of marriage. Let’s push all forms of gay and lesbian issues so that the one-man/one-woman relationships are forever opposite the norm. Not much hope there for the human species.

    Finally, how about destroying the sanctity of womanhood altogether. Women on the front line, as a rule will dissolve all differences between our metrosexual men and our feminista women. We will finally all be as one – equal in all aspects and better at none.

    Now, I understand, there will always be cases where abortions are necessary (in extreme cases of dire need), there will be people who find themselves with a differing sexuality (than that which propagates the species), and there will always be women who are better suited for the military than many men (I know many that could easily outperform me).

    This is all well and good. I’m not a male chauvinist pig. I don’t think women are the lesser of the species (in fact, I think they have a leg up on us guys in most areas). But what I do think is that this is a continuing agenda to destroy the natural and family-oriented value system that our country was founded on and has slowly been deviated from over the last few decades (much like that infamous frog in the pot of water).

    Once they are complete with their social experimentation, we will wonder where our basic values actually went and where we go from here. Let’s not let that happen.

    Edit: Women already carry the burden of our future generations (which men cannot do). Let’s not force them to bear our arms as well.

    • Suzyqpie

      We have all been reduced to guinea pigs. Nudge nudge let’s see what we can get away with next….making our military weak.

  • tinlizzieowner

    This isn’t even about serving in combat. THIS is what it’s really all about.

    This was 47 years ago. April 3, 1965. An amazing prediction. Do you remember the famous ABC radio commentator Paul Harvey?
    Millions of Americans listened to his programs which, were broadcast over 1,200 radio stations nationwide.
    When you listen to this, remember the commentary was broadcast 47 years ago on April 3, 1965.
    It’s short…less than three minutes. You will be amazed.

    http://stg.do/9LDc

    • kong1967

      I’ve heard that several times before. It never gets old.

      • tinlizzieowner

        I’ve posted it several times before and I’m likely to post it several more times.
        It seems every couple generations, this country grows a raging case of stupid, which is usually followed by a war (and a Democrat in the White House, most of the time). ;-)

        • kong1967

          Lol, that’s funny…but true. Actually, it’s not funny, but you know what I mean.

          • tinlizzieowner

            Actually, it’s a fact. There was a Democrat in the White House at the beginning of 4 out of the 5 wars in the 20th century.
            Wilson (D) WW1, Roosevelt (D) WW2, Truman (D) Korea, Kennedy/Johnson (D), Viet Nam.
            “None of the 4 wars in my lifetime came about because America was too strong”.
            Ronald Reagan.

            • kong1967

              Looking at what Obama’s doing to Egypt and Syria, Democrats are setting us up for another war.

              He’s funneling weapons to the militants in Syra…which has Al Qeda in it. If Assad is uprooted, the following government will be more oppressive than Assad.

              That has already happened in Egypt. Morsi is shutting down papers that speak out against him and he’s moving towards a dictatorship that will be Islamic and a threat to the entire world. Their currency has dropped 10% of it’s worth in just the last month alone.

              Democrats….Obama in particular….are dumber than rocks. Actually, I think Obama is using “democracy” as a cover for what he’s actually doing. There won’t be any more elections in Egypt, and once the muslims take over Syria it’s over for them as well.

              • tinlizzieowner

                Think about this for a minute. What do Democrats do when they manage to capture the White House and the majority of Congress. 1st, they strive for ‘income equality’. 2nd, they gut the military. WW1 was ‘the war to end all wars’, right? What do we need a strong military for? Oh, and let’s create a ‘League of Nations’ so despot Dictators have an ‘equal say’ in world affairs. We damn near lost WW2 in the beginning because weren’t vigilant. We bombed half the world into the stone age during WW2 (and helped promote Communism, in the process) under a Democratic administration and Korea came along. We bailed out on our WW2 ally Ho Chi Minh in his fight for independence against the colonialist French but the Communist Chinese and Stalin were more than happy to help him, once Stalin had most of Southeast Asia in his grasp.
                This is standard Democratic operating procedure. They are ‘going to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony’ if it kills US. They will do it again.

                • kong1967

                  Lol, your grasp of in-depth history far exceeds mine. History was my worst subject. But you are right. That’s what the Democrats and the U.N. are doing now. They want to use funds from CO2 taxes to develop 3rd world nations (which will create more CO2, making their global warming argument ridiculous). Obama believes we have too much power and the muslims not enough…so he’s giving them more and removing ours. Their vision of a world living in perfect harmony is ignorance at it’s best…or worst. All they do is is destabilize the world and put everyone in jeopardy.

                • tinlizzieowner

                  I work in a military museum. I’m an (amateur) military historian.

                • kong1967

                  Lol, amateur. If you call yourself an amateur I’d hate to see how that ranks me. You’re very knowledgeable.

                • tinlizzieowner

                  I’m also pretty old. ;-)

  • sDee

    A volunteer military will not wear blue helmets, will not fight for the UN – for global government.

    Demoralizing and purging the military serves that end.

    Opening women up to combat will require that they too register for the draft.

    Getting the drift?

    • NCHokie02

      exactly, all those feminists that cheer this move. I’ll laugh in their face when the gov’t says “Hey, you need to register for Selective Service if you are between the ages of 18 and 35.” Then tell them to ruck up and keep up.

  • Conniption Fitz

    Israel learned better and stopped using women on the front lines of combat. Hip injuries, and permanent injuries to female parts that rendered them unable to have children, were prevalent.

    • Suzyqpie

      Which, in the USA, will provide the mother lode to lawyers with discrimination and work-place injury law suits. If you review the debris field of the 0bama administration, starting with 0bamaCareRobertsTax, everything they have don’t has been litigated to the hilt. Pres 0bama’s law school comrades are having a blast!

  • NCHokie02

    The cons of women out-weigh the pros drastically in this instance. The only pro I can think of is that it would make things “fair”. After that it’s done.

    People want to talk of letting those capable join?? Wrong. Why would we make a law based on the exception?

    One of my major concerns is that if women are pregnant they are non-deployable. So if some girl gets pregnant overseas they go home. In an admin position, fine, someone else will have to pick up the slack a little. In a combat position I’m losing direct combat power. Oops…there goes my Platoon leader. Oops….there goes my machine gunner. You don’t get replacements for them because they do not come off of your books. They are just non-deployable. These women want to talk about fairness in promotions….lets say a female platoon leader is pregnant of her own accords with her husband and the unit has to go to the field for 2 weeks. She can’t go and do the things required and somehow she is supposed to be rated as high as the other PL’s that are out there the whole time? What about a deployment?? Now I’m deploying without my Platoon Leader. I’ve lost combat power before I’ve even left the US.

    People will say “Oh well the military should be professional about it.” Get real. The military is still made up of young men and young women. And when they get together, they have sex. It’s what happens. Especially when deployed and away from home for your first time. If Patreaus can’t even keep it in his pants how do you honestly expect 18 year old privates to?

    The men that join the military to fight have a certain character about them. I don’t see them taking orders from women very well. It’s just our nature. And how many guys in the unit will be betting on “who gets to sleep with the new PL, squad leader, rifleman, etc first?”

    they talk of the CST’s (cultural sustainment teams, made up of women to go with the infantry and SOF to talk to women in afghanistan). All I ever here of the CST’s is that they aren’t really worth the time invested and most of them end up sleeping with guys. Just think, some 20 yr old out on some remote firebase with Special Forces or SEALs and you don’t think that girl isn’t going to want to sleep with one of those guys?? Not to mention those guys wanting to sleep with her?? Your away from family, home, comfort and your in a testosterone filled environment where you almost got killed and killed some people, what a better way to end the day than with the female lying beside you. It’s our nature, it’s what happens now to the females that are out there now.

    Then what do the wives of these men think when they have to deploy with their female counterparts to remote locations. A relationship builds between men in combat and they become close. When that same relationship builds with women in combat it will lead to S-E-X. That’s helpful on the home front and keeps the wives even more stressed, now they are thinking, not only do I have to worry about my husband dying but about him sleeping with women who are out with him.

    What respectable military in the world today has women in front line combat?? Hmm…can’t think of any. What does that say about us as a society when we send out daughters and wives and mothers off to engage the men of another country in direct combat?? What woman is going to beat a man in hand to hand combat?? That is expected.

    They will talk of the exploits of other women in the military that happen upon circumstances they weren’t expecting and perform well. Well thats why they are issued guns. We expect them to shoot back and defend their units and themselves when attacked. I don’t expect them to go out looking for a fight. Back on the frontier, the men expected the women to know how to use a rifle when they left to hunt or off to war to defend the household. They didn’t expect the women to go looking after indians.

    I haven’t even touched on the medical issues and physiological differences either. “We are equal!!” they shout. Really?? Then why don’t women go against men in the olympics?? Why don’t women compete in the NFL?? Why doesn’t the WNBA merge with the NBA?? Oh, thats right because men and women are different. The men are stronger and faster. Fact.

    Ok I’ve gone on long enough about this but it’s a horrible idea and will fail miserably.

    • kong1967

      Great post.

      If there’s such a push to be “equal”, what happens during the next draft? Are they going to stick to being “fair” and draft women as well? We’d be cutting our bloodlines, and we can’t do that.

      The first time there’s video of a group of American women soldiers that are raped and butchered by Al Qeda, this country will devastated and flip out.

  • Philo Beddoe

    I don’t think it’s a good idea.

    There are women out there that make men nervous. Women have been fighting for this moment for years, now they will be allowed and there are complaints from women.

    Go figure

    • kong1967

      Women have been fighting to be put on front lines? That’s news to me. Not saying you’re wrong, but I’ve never heard of it before.

      I’d imagine the number of them has to be small.

  • ryanomaniac

    This is sloop stupid. Its a physical fact that women are weaker. What happens now? The men will have to compensate for a woman’s weakness. She will weigh them down. Its just stupid.

    • sDee

      There you go again trying to counter with logic or reason. ;) The goal is to destroy America. Here they will further feminize the military.

      American is under attack, this is just one more carefully planned blow. The Progressives claim the high ground and “equal rights”.

      How about…
      “Panetta and Obama to put our wives, mothers and daughters in harms way”
      Announce it on a stage with a backdrop of kids clinging to their mothers skirts.

      That’s how they do it propaganda land.

    • kong1967

      I can’t imagine what Al Qeda….and any other Arabs as far as that goes…..will do to the women if they capture them.

      • sDee

        When you’re wounded out on Afghanistan’s plains
        And the women come out to cut up what remains,
        Then just roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
        And die like a good British soldier!

        -Rudyard Kipling

        • kong1967

          Ugh, that’s awful. Of course, I’d rather shoot myself than be butchered.

  • Biggbear52

    O.k folks here’s the anti-sufferjet view without trying to be: Thirty plus years ago a study concluded that females were 100 times more susceptible to fear and stress than there male counter parts in combat or high fear jobs. Now before you ladies attempt to hammer on me. Remember this is a study by professionals that do this for a living. Having virtually nothing to do with me. Other than I have conveyed the results of said study.

    • sDee

      Western civilization and Christianity brought the west out of the dark ages with strong men, strong women in marriage – strengths different, yet combined to be far greater than each on their own.

      Why should anyone hammer you? The women of America allowed themselves to be seduced by the power and victimization of the “feminist movement” and then exploited for political gain. This is just one of the many prices paid.

      In 1963 the news media showed women burning their bras as the women’s liberation movement took off with the publishing of “The Feminine Mystique” by Betty Friedan. Martin Luther King was jailed in April and civil unrest was being brought to the forefront. On August 28th the media brought us live coverage of the march on Washington and Dr. Kings famous “I had a dream” speech. The Cuban missile crisis found its way in to our homes and our nation was gearing up for conflict.

      By September of 1963 we had lost some very influential people, Pope John XXIII, Robert Frost, and country legend Patsy Cline, to name a few. In the early hours of November 22nd we learned of the quiet passing of C.S. Lewis and hours later we were brought to our knees when President John F. Kennedy was assassinated and our nation mourned.

      So you see, while long since forgotten, 1963 could very well have been, one of the most important years since our founding fathers provided us with the Constitution of the United States…

      The Communist Takeover Of America – 45 Declared Goals
      http://askmarion.wordpress.com/2013/01/21/the-communist-takeover-of-america-45-declared-goals/

      • Biggbear52

        You still acknowledge and understand my point. Personally I do not care whether hammered or not but there are presumed ladies out there that think they have a third leg.

        • sDee

          No argument – I tend to over analyze.

          It is weasel sh’ts like Panetta who serve only as a quivering parasitic masses on the backs of our military men and women.

    • kong1967

      Just to make a point, half of all studies are bogus. I’d imagine that most men are scared out of their britches, too, when fighting in close combat. Courage is when you are scared to death and move forward anyway.

      • stage9

        The difference is that men are born with an innate ability to push fear down in the face of conflict and focus on the mission. We were engineered by God for that purpose. Women are emotional beings and aren’t wired that way. that’s not to say that women aren’t or can’t be brave, because they are, but war is a nasty place, and it ain’t a hollywood film studio.

        • kong1967

          No doubt. I was just making a point that just because there was a study on it doesn’t make it fact. I agree with what you are saying though, without the use of a study.

      • Biggbear52

        When faced with eminent strife of a physical nature or peril for that matter. If one stands and says “ I’M NOT AFRAID” is a fool. In the 60’s and 70’s this study included females in the combat sector of South East Asia and the Middle east. In both cases virtually all females either nutted up or froze in their tracks. This is not some imaginary of contrived. Yet it is a serious study done by the department of defense from 1963 to 1979. However you will not find any results as it has been sealed. The only reason I even know of it is that some of those females were in my Unit between 1977 and 1981!

        • kong1967

          Then this begs the question as to why Panetta is ignoring the study.

  • Arrrggghhh

    We need to make f-16’s wheelchair accessible also. Build a little ramp on the side and modify the controls to be tongue operated. Why shouldn’t quadriplegics have a chance to be Top Gun pilots? It’s just not FAIR. Wah wah wah.

    • kong1967

      Except you are suggesting that women are inferior by comparing them to disabled people. Although there can be arguments that can be made as to why women shouldn’t be on front lines, I don’t think downgrading them is the way to go about it….no offense.

      I don’t want women fighting on front lines, however.

      • sDee

        I took the point to be…. where do we draw the line?

        e.g. We now cannot have anyone in the military asking questions about islamist loyalties in thier ranks – political correctness. That led to Major Hasan fulfilling his self proclaimed role as “Solider of Allah”.

        When there is no line defended, the foundation crumbles.

        • kong1967

          Now that you mention it, I think that is what he meant. The points you make are spot on.

    • kong1967

      I stand corrected. I have been told that the point is that we have to draw a line. I see what you’re saying now. Yes, we do.

      • Arrrggghhh

        That’s exactly what I meant. There is simply no end to how far the libs want to move all of our “lines.” before you know it, we’ll be living in a real “Brave New World”.

        • kong1967

          I agree, including allowing some nutball to marry his horse.

    • Conniption Fitz

      Blind men (and women) should be allowed to be snipers. Their guide dogs can help them with depth perception and aiming the guns.

      It’s just not fair.

  • Kordane

    Those who say that male soldiers will be distracted by female soldiers on the battlefield, are effectively saying that male soldiers aren’t rational and aren’t professional enough to see past all of that.

    I say give it a test run at the very least. Experimental evidence will tell us what’s what.

    • sDee

      The experiment is over. The experiment was to see if America would allow its military to be weakened, infiltrated and feminized by progressivism and political correctness.

      We now have gays, coed combat and jihadists.

      Next step – blue helmets.

      • Kordane

        That may be the motivation behind the Left wanting to do it, but my motivation is just simple curiosity to see whether all the fears concerning women in the military is justified or not. I think fear is something that we all have to overcome, or at the very least discover whether it has a rational basis for it.

        • sDee

          The fears, and the worry, are stirred emotions – as a distraction.

          If you look to this as an experiment, with something to be gleened or learned, you cannot ignore that the results will be invalid because the outcome has been pre-detrmined.

          As always with the soulless who now lead us, the price will not be paid by them

          • Kordane

            I don’t see any pre-determined results. All I’ve heard is of women joining infantry units that didn’t choose to be there and didn’t have infantry training, yet people expect them to act just like those infantrymen who chose to be there and who did the training.

            Even if an experiment is done and it’s determined that ‘most’ women aren’t acceptable for the front lines as infantry, then there must be some who were, and so even then we could perhaps permit it, but with far more rigor than a male would be subjected to, lest we exclude those females who are fine for the role and aren’t a problem.

        • tinlizzieowner

          It’s not “women in the military”, it’s women assigned to direct combat conditions.
          The military is not the place for ‘social experiments’. My ex Woman’s Army Corps. Viet Nam era wife, (A female R. Lee Ermey, I might add) would just love to have a talk with you. You DO know who R. Lee Ermey is, right? ;-)

    • stage9

      You’ve obviously never served in the military.

      • Kordane

        Nope, I don’t take orders from tyrants. I’m only willing to defend myself and my family on the “well regulated militia” level. Don’t be looking down on militias now; the founders thought very highly of them.

        • stage9

          Are you referring to Obama or a commanding officer? Because Obama may be Commander in Chief but as a soldier you take orders from real soldiers on the ground. Soldiers fight for their country but ultimately for each other. They watch each other’s backs and lay down their lives for one another.

          Civilians haven’t got the slightest CLUE what it means to be a soldier and to put your life in someone else’s hands. Trying to explain military life to a civilian is like trying to explain astrophysics to a 2 year old. it just doesn’t compute. That’s why civilian social experiments don’t work in the military. When bullets start flying social experiments get people killed.

          And I believe in militias too by the way.

          • Kordane

            From the commander in chief. The overall mission (whether it’s iraq, afghanistan, libya, etc) is guided by the CiC, and so even though you might respect your commanding officers’ individual decisions, you know that you’re ultimately doing the bidding of the CiC, and therefore doing the bidding of a tyrant. You can dress it up by telling yourself that you’re “fighting for your country”, but really what you’re doing is going places and doing things that the CiC wants done, there is a profound disconnect between what’s best for your country and what’s best for the re-election and/or political survival/benefit of the CiC. It’s just that the micromanagement of how those things are done is handled by respectable commanding officers, and so people don’t see the bigger picture.

    • kong1967

      No.

    • stage9

      And there is an example, I posted it yesterday. An actual 11B who had an experience in Afghanistan with female soldiers attached to his unit.

      Language warning! — From an actual 11B

      “Except I have experience having females attached to my Infantry platoon, in combat. It was not a pleasant experience. They COULD NOT hump their own gear. They WOULD NOT stand fire watch, because ” something could happen”. Their little section leader told me ” If something happens, we will stay back here and let you guys handle it”. **** no, woman. You asked for it, and you got it. If something happens, you WILL BE up and firing your guns, or I’m kicking the **** out of you.

      They had to stop the patrols for LOOOOOOOONG security halts. They had to build a little tee-pee out of ponchos so they could ” go potty”. Yeah, that was a great thing to have come over the radio ” Hey, SSgt, can we stop for a potty break?”.

      They didn’t want to hump their own weight, so they would promise **** jobs for guys who would hump their ****, and then not deliver. They would get right up on you and push their breasts up against your arm while asking for ****.

      Villages that were our friends turned their backs on us, because we had women with us. The Taliban was trying to constantly set up ambushes with the specific intent of killing one, or better yet, capturing one. There was a $20,000 bounty for female killed, and a $50,000 bounty for a captured female.”

      • sDee

        reality is ugly and hard to take – so many avoid it

      • Kordane

        Wait a second, who were these female soldiers? Were they Afghanis or something? They don’t sound very professional, like the US military would have made them.

        • Conniption Fitz

          Don’t be naive. Most women today haven’t got scruples. Some in the military have had 6+ abortions, been used/abused by their mother’s boyfriends, their fathers, brothers, boyfriends, bosses, etc.

          They aren’t pure fair maidens with training and muscles. They are professionals all right and for hire, IYKWIM.

          • Conniption Fitz

            Women in the military are in enough danger without being on the front lines. The sexual assault rate in the military exceeds some muslim countries and US inner cities.

            The only worse place for sexual assaults on women is the UN or NATO military units where more Islamists are assigned.

        • stage9

          No, they were female soldiers attached to an infantry unit. It happens all the time. I was MI and our linguists were attached to various units throughout theater. It’s part of how the military operates.

          I could tell you stories about females in the military too, but I digress.

          • Kordane

            The difference is that those females clearly didn’t choose to be part of the infantry unit, and they didn’t have infantry training like those soldiers had.

            I could have found a bunch of non-infantry males and thrown them into that infantry unit, and they’d have been just as annoying. You have to choose to be apart of it and you have to go through the training!

  • kong1967

    I don’t want women to fight on front lines. If there’s ever a draft, we will have to put all women out there unless you make an exception for civilians and not draft women. But if the drive is to make women equal, you would figure they would have to be equal in the draft as well. If that happens, our bloodlines will be severed. I don’t think it will ever go that far, though.

    Besides, I view women as our princesses to be put on a pedestal. I want to protect our women and open car doors for them. I don’t have a problem with women doing almost every job a man does, but some jobs require extreme fitness and muscle. The Angelina Jolie you see in the movies kicking everyone’s as* is….just a movie.

    We aren’t ready to see dead American women piled up on the battlefield. This country will crack. I hope we’re never ready.

    • sDee

      “We aren’t ready to see dead American women piled up on the battlefield. This country will crack. I hope we’re never ready.”

      The American people will only see what the globalist propaganda outlets show them.

      Women fallen are 2 percent of the casualties of our wars, and 12 percent of those deployed into situations with no defined front lines, insurgent tactics included roadside bombs.

      Does anyone in America see those faces, those families today?

      • kong1967

        Nope. The only thing I’ve ever seen was a woman that was a hero for rushing in and saving a fellow soldier…..or something along those lines.

  • Constance

    Being a woman, I’ll offer my opinion on this. Call me old fashioned, but I think the front lines should be for the men in my country. I still believe that men have an instinct to protect, despite decades of being told that men don’t. I believe that men, for the most part, are better able to handle what the front lines bring – strength, emotion, fear. Men are men for a reason. To assume that putting a bunch of women on the front line won’t change the dynamics in war is to be blind to basic human nature, in my opinion. Talk about setting up the perfect hostage situation, yes? Wouldn’t the enemy love to get their hands on a bunch of American women and torture them for the cameras? Far more of an impact on this country. I can handle a bow and arrow very well, and I can handle guns very well. I’m able to protect myself and others around me. However, I am not the size or strength of a man – one who has been trained for combat. That’s just my humble opinion.

    • tinlizzieowner

      And your humble opinion would be exactly correct. There’s an ex Woman’s Army Corps. Viet Nam era Vet sitting right across from me right now, on her computer, my wife, that will confirm your every word.

  • Landscaper

    Our son has been back from Afghanistan for about 1 1/2 years now. Now he has pain in his knees and lower back at 23 because of the weight they wore. Vest, helmet, weapon, ammo, water, pack….
    In the field on patrol is where it gets worse for EVERYONE. When they have a causality, Medevac flies out the wounded, all the extra ammo, water and weapon stays with the squad. Every member now has extra to carry added to the weight they left the base with. Wounded sometimes can be cared for in place by the Corpsman. Sometimes they need to be dragged or carried to safety under fire. That persons body with their gear. WEIGHT !
    Firemen had this same thing posed to them. Can a female carry another member to safety? In fires and fire fights, its life and death. Why experiment?

  • http://navalwarfare.blogspot.com/ Libertyship46

    Given the way the armed forces is made up today, I’m not surprised this decision was made by the most liberal administration in history. And for the handful of women out there who really DO want to go into combat, I just hope and pray that you will be qualified to assist the other people in your unit. Because if you are thinking about your career over the welfare of the other troops in your unit, then you should not be in that unit. And I sincerely doubt the administration has given any thought as to what would happen to these women if they were captured by the enemy, any enemy. And let’s not even talk about some of the more horrific wounds a lot of these women will be sustaining as well. As usual, liberals never think about the unintended consequences of their actions, only the “feel good” desires of their very vocal supporters. They are like little kids stamping their feet and determined to have their way, regardless of the consequences. And what if the other troops in this unit suffer because of this decision? What do they DO? Who do they turn to? When you’re stuck on some crappy hill in Afghanistan with people trying to kill you, I just hope EVERYBODY in the unit is able to make a contribution to save that unit, not be a burden to it.

  • Amy

    You know another thing that sucks about this decision? It’s going to cost dollars to accomodate this. We’re heading into a downsizing already with cutbacks that will hurt and now the military will have to spend on a useless provision that does nothing to improve our fighting force. Idiots – all of them. Aren’t we to the point of pitchforks and tar & feathers yet?

  • MadAsHellJack

    Gives a whole new meaning to the Buddy System! Like in **CK buddy system. Like someone else mentioned young men and women are driven primarily by hormones and in tense situations those hormones rage even more.

  • Conniption Fitz

    Panetta and Obama have the emotional immaturity and egocentricity of children.

    After the Bin Laden announcement, Panetta was talking to the media about what movie star would play ‘me’ in the movie about the military operation.

    It’s all about them.

    I would not allow my children to serve under them. With their love of abortion and their record of casualties in Afghanistan (72% under Obama) and their support for Islamists, they have proven they do not value human life.

    • Landscaper

      My son enlisted in ’07 in the Marines, we were glad he didn’t didn’t reenlist in ’11.

      • Amy

        My youngest has decided that he’s joining the Marine Corps as soon as he’s 18. :-( We’ve tried repeatedly to talk to him and persuade him to get a couple years of tech school under his belt first. No dice. I will say he’s heading in with his eyes wide open though and knowing what the potential climate could/will be like and that’s admirable. He feels compelled to serve. My heart breaks a little every day now because the time is ticking away and the world is getting even nastier. I would never forbid it though – As a military mom, I’ve had people outright ask me why I didn’t try to talk them out of it. I even had one woman tell me she threatened to break her son’s leg if he enlisted so he wouldn’t be able to go – KNOWING I had one down range at the time. :-(

        • Landscaper

          They take good son and give you back a great son. He’ll do fine. As far as the world goes, we need fine young men like him.

  • http://www.facebook.com/chester.simms.1 Chester Simms

    Seems like a ploy (not intended to be really implemented) so that armed forces can be further weakened and demoralized.

  • Orangeone

    MN National Guard statement that women are excited about being in combat. So I say let the front line be the gays (they also want to be in combat), 2nd line be the women that want to be in combat. Let’s see who the enemies enjoy this.

  • Godisright

    The ultimate humiliation for Islamic fighters: To loose to a brigade of women. There could be strategy in this??

    “Rrrun Akmahd, rrrun!”

  • Diogenes_wy

    Should I be manning the barricades on main street USA against hostiles either foreign or domestic who would deprive me of my liberty and/or my life, and the women of the town joined me I would welcome them with open arms and be proud to stand with them, because we all know that there is nothing more cunning, stubborn, determined and just downright vicious than the female of the species defending her family and home. However, to send women into harms way in foreign lands to satisfy a political agenda is just plain UN-American (not to mention ungentlemanly).

  • Hopefulspam

    If women want to fight on the front lines, let them fight with other women. My brother always told me that if there was a woman in their special forces unit, they would all have taken special precaution to help protect her, rather than putting 100% of their efforts on the mission. This decision by Penatta will likely result in an increase in casualties on the front lines. We’re crossing the line from equality into absurdity…