Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

Women To Be Part of Combat

Defense secretary to announce changes today

January 24, 2013

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Pentagon is lifting its ban on women serving in combat, opening hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs after generations of limits on......

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Jan-24-13 4:18 AM

Next, Return of draft ? It has not been the intent to place women in harms way in conflict. Unfortunately it happens. Now they can claim equal pay for equal work in the military. When yopu no longer value women, you might remember Mom is a woman too.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-24-13 6:32 AM

Utter lunacy! I can only imaging the touchy-feely BS classes that our FIGHTING MEN are now going to be subjected to so as not to offend their sisters-in-arms.

We no longer have a military to defend our once great nation, it has become one gigantic social experiment.

We, as a nation, have fallen through the bunny hole....

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-24-13 6:33 AM

For years, this stylish debate has taken on an gender rights focus in regard to equality in a women's career advancement, pay, and full participation in the military. The problem is with this logic is that combat is not an individual endeavor, one goes as part of a team or a unit.

As the article mentions, general physical capabilities of women have long been cited as not allowing females certain roles in the military. This will never change and, even if there is gender norm in the training of combat troops, there is no gender norming on the field of battle. The female solder, thus, has less of an equal chance of surviving combat than her male counterparts which also puts everyone else in her unit at a higher risk death.

A pregnant soldier can not be called up for combat. So much for quick deployment.

I do not doubt the love of county or intelligence of women who wish to serve in war. I just personally think it is a bad idea and there rational reasons for my opinion.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-24-13 7:40 AM

Remember a few of our captured troops in Desert Eagle? Dragged through the streets, set on fire, and then the torso's were HUNG on a bridge?

I wonder how touchy feely and warm fuzzy we will feel when that was somebody's 20 year old American daughter????

This is the dumbest {bleeping} crap {bleeping} idea yet to come from the Nobrainsa administration.

These clowns want to take what has WORKED and PROVEN ITSELF in WWI WWII KOREA VIETNAM and DESERT STORM/EAGLE and FLUSH it down the toilet just for the sake of political correctness.


Want your 20 year daughter to find out first hand?????

NO {bleeping} way!

1 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-24-13 7:53 AM

Anyone who doubts that women cannot handle combat is a bachelor.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-24-13 7:59 AM

Hey idiot I don't want my 20 year old son to find out either. If females can pass the physical requirements for combat positions then let them share in the risks of combat. Time for all 18 year old females to register with selective service like their male counterparts have been doing for years.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-24-13 8:07 AM

I see that moron Panetta waited until his final days as SecDef to announce this harebrained idea. Why now? Hello! It's because the 'all volunteer force' is a charade! Minus the Draft there are just not enough patriotic goobers willing to take endless deployments to fight illegal wars for Israel!

War *****, but if a country wants to use it as an 'instrument of national policy' ....well, 'man up!' and bring back the Draft! What parent would want to see the bloated carcass of a 19 year old daughter raped, then slo-butchered by 100 towel headed crazies? Real combat is NOT the same as the 'games' the armchair losers play on their computers!

Next, they'll demand all American birds & animals (pets & wild) somehow be given 'male plumage'!

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-24-13 8:13 AM

Do you see how these countries and militants treat their own women? I wonder how they will treat a captured female US soldier. Like complete gentlemen I'm sure....

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-24-13 8:45 AM

This is more political pandering. I doubt that there are many women who want to load up with 100 pound plus of equipment and march into the Afghan mountains to do close, lethal combat. If you think that this is just necesssary for equality, lets seriously think about bringing back the military draft and once again have a citizen based Army. America is a democracy but fighting for it is left up to a relatively small group of people. Volunteers? Or victims of capitalism with no jobs? A major reason the Vietnam war was ended was that it was a draft based Army and even though there were many ways for privileged to avoid serving, it was a citizen based Army and parents paid attention to the risks. Obama spends US military lives like pocket change on his Islamic wars and the left sits back with fingers in their ears. They are never going to serve so they don't care. Everyone serves or no one serves, thats equality. How about that? Too good to serve? Many think they.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-24-13 8:58 AM

In principle, women should be allowed to fill any position for which they are physically and mentally qualified. With proper training there are women who certainly could serve proficiently as combat troops.

In practice, civilian and military leaders driven by political correctness very quickly lower standards for women to meet quotas for women. This results in reduced combat effectiveness for combat units and increased risk for combat troops.

If this Administration can guarantee standards for combat troops will be upheld and quotas for women in combat roles will not be set, allowing women to fill combat positions will not be a problem. However, this Administration has been all about nothing BUT quotas and lowering standards, so I have zero faith this new policy, as it will certainly be implemented under this Administration, will result in anything but increased risk and workload for our combat troops.

2 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-24-13 9:05 AM

I believe that the Messiah Barack Hussein Obama once told CommieServant George Sephanopoulus"Everybody is going to have to give. Everybody is going to have to have some skin in the game".Of course, that was in the context of debate over the stimulus, but I take every word that the Messiah utters as gospel, because he is the Messiah. Now if a Republican stood up and said, NO WOMEN IN COMBAT, then there would be an uproar over that wouldn't there? Ohhhh it's another shot in the Republican War on Women!!! Re-Elect Obama, get back at them repubwiccans!!!!!

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-24-13 9:09 AM

Women have a much right to fight for this country as men. We live and work here and yes bare arms too. Believe it or not there allot of women who are stronger and braver then some men!

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-24-13 9:19 AM

Any who doubts what Muslims will do with women in combat is a misogynist or pervert, boozerboi.

For the low IQ Cluela**es a "misogynist" is NOT a massage therapy technician.

The question is NOT can women perform the combat function, I'm sure many CAN.

The question is DO REAL MEN defend their women OR send them into a situation where they can be uniquely tortured, abused, killed, and used for propaganda??

But then what would boozerBOYZ and Cluea** loser know about REAL men?

The girly men transvestite pervert losers in the Obama White House cabinet would probably get off on that.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-24-13 9:25 AM

more culture CHANGE for America..good or it or not...our country has CHANGED...and will keep CHANGING...the rules are...there are no rules, except for Govt. rules...funny how a people can be so deceived into thinking they are Free

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-24-13 9:28 AM

It takes two people to tell the truth. One to tell it and one to listen. It only takes one to tell the lie and many to follow it.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-24-13 9:31 AM

I would like to hear from Jessica Lynch on this matter.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-24-13 9:33 AM

The muslim dogs will have much more fun with their rape and torture of the women they capture...

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-24-13 9:35 AM

here's a progressive and boys have been fighting enough wars..I think it's time to let the women do all the fighting and let the men,boys stay home...lets start this right away...

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-24-13 10:14 AM


I guess beheading their male prisoners of war is not as bad as raping their female prisoners of war. People our soldiers know the possible price of their enlistment and gladly accept those prices. Male or female should make no difference, if females can pass all the requierments for a combat position then LET THEM FIGHT.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-24-13 10:31 AM

Is Goosewoman eligible?

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-24-13 10:33 AM

Use our military for DEFENSE of America. If we are truly defending America...all of us will stand up. Not all Americans believe in bombing democracy into all cultures globally for economic gain...we must be careful not to be the terrorists, not to be on the side of evil, not to be on the offensive...but to defend America, it's people, and it's land.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-24-13 10:36 AM

Any capable and willing person should have the same opportunities to serve her/his country. There are no inherent limitations...only prejudices and bias.

Use our military as a means for peace...not global economic pressure.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-24-13 10:37 AM

A military that only "trains to kill" a set up for failure...especially for the individual who must carry this isolation through the rest of his/her civilian life.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-24-13 10:49 AM

@acoustic; "Use our military as a means for peace...not global economic pressure. "

Please explain the difference. How is peace achieved?

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-24-13 10:59 AM

acousticportal “A military that only "trains to kill" a set up for failure.”

The sole purpose of the military, when unleashed, is to kill the enemy as quickly and efficiently as possible. Not to police, not to do construction projects, not to create jobs, not to be experiments in social engineering. A nation that grows too weak to accept that fact will eventually be overrun by stronger nations who do not.

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 64 comments Show More Comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.

I am looking for: