Women on the front lines??

**** is about to get serious! Try messing with a woman on her period..........I know how crazy I can get when I'm TOM.

[
Wait.....you just mentioned politician and common sense in the same sentence. If it weren't so sad of an utterance it would be laughable.

ah yes because all military people are a bastion of common sense and always make the right decisions. lol

just guessing here...is this some kind of Obama backlash for you?

I'm sorry, but what does the premise of "better" have to do mission accomplishment. That's a subjective topic on which civilians have the leisure to pontificate, while those of us in uniform are not so lucky.

so a soldier's ability doesnt affect the outcome of a mission? thats news to me.

you dont have the "leisure to pontificate"? isnt that what you are doing now?


its like telling Jackie Robinson he shouldnt play baseball because even though he is better than many on the team he might upset too many people.

I'm begining to believe you truly are trolling for attention, as I doubt you have ever worn a uniform are enjoy the opportunity to malign the institution at every turn.

That said, you have an interesting manner of taking my words out of context, and bending them to suit yourself. So far as "mission accomplishment" is concerned, please explain to me....supported by empirical data, how the manpower pool we have now is unable to accomplish the mission, and that there is an overwhelming NEED to access another source? The policy change is merely on paper, as women obviously are already exposed to both danger and combat. Giving it a different name is simply that, a different name. If this is solely about "more opportunities" for woman, that argument is a far cry from mission success. And I personally fail to see what Jackie Robinson has to with this. The miltary integrated at the same time, and happens to be far more integrated (on the whole) than society writ large. Additionally, women ARE allowed to serve.....so your premise of exclusion is non-valid.

**** is about to get serious! Try messing with a woman on her period..........I know how crazy I can get when I'm TOM.

mmhmm. get a bunch of us at the same time, tell us we're being irrational or hormonal, and watch us go

Dead set against it. Women have no business on the front lines. I'm not ant-feminist or anything, I just think men and women have equally important, but essentially polar opposite roles in life. Men are the breadwinners and defenders, women are the nurturers. That's just my personal belief, since the OP asked for it,

I'm begining to believe you truly are trolling for attention, as I doubt you have ever worn a uniform are enjoy the opportunity to malign the institution at every turn.

That said, you have an interesting manner of taking my words out of context, and bending them to suit yourself. So far as "mission accomplishment" is concerned, please explain to me....supported by empirical data, how the manpower pool we have now is unable to accomplish the mission, and that there is an overwhelming NEED to access another source? The policy change is merely on paper, as women obviously are already exposed to both danger and combat. Giving it a different name is simply that, a different name. If this is solely about "more opportunities" for woman, that argument is a far cry from mission success. And I personally fail to see what Jackie Robinson has to with this. The miltary integrated at the same time, and happens to be far more integrated (on the whole) than society writ large. Additionally, women ARE allowed to serve.....so your premise of exclusion is non-valid.

how am i maligning anything? and i havent been in the military but that doesnt mean my opinion is any less valid. have you served in political office? if not then by your logic maybe you shouldnt talk about political matters. its laughable that military people think civiilians opinions dont matter since they havent served.

and who cares if we need any more soldiers now or not...thats no reason to deny women the opportunity. and thinking of national security...there may come a time in 10 or 20 years where we are at war with a much more powerful enemy(China?) and we will need all the personnel that we can get. so better to start getting them integrated sooner rather than later. its not just an ethical issue its a national security issue.

jackie robinson is an analogy. its amazing how you guys cant see it. there was a time racists said we didnt need or want blacks in the military. that it would hurt the missions. and now we have sexists saying the same thing about women.

it is 2013 right? i havent time warped back to the 50's right?

Men are the breadwinners and defenders, women are the nurturers.

And for those of us women who are breadwinners and not nurturing by nature?

Maybe we should stop lumping people into the categories we believe they should fit into, and instead let people define their own roles, for their own lives.

I'm begining to believe you truly are trolling for attention, as I doubt you have ever worn a uniform are enjoy the opportunity to malign the institution at every turn.

That said, you have an interesting manner of taking my words out of context, and bending them to suit yourself. So far as "mission accomplishment" is concerned, please explain to me....supported by empirical data, how the manpower pool we have now is unable to accomplish the mission, and that there is an overwhelming NEED to access another source? The policy change is merely on paper, as women obviously are already exposed to both danger and combat. Giving it a different name is simply that, a different name. If this is solely about "more opportunities" for woman, that argument is a far cry from mission success. And I personally fail to see what Jackie Robinson has to with this. The miltary integrated at the same time, and happens to be far more integrated (on the whole) than society writ large. Additionally, women ARE allowed to serve.....so your premise of exclusion is non-valid.

how am i maligning anything? and i havent been in the military but that doesnt mean my opinion is any less valid. have you served in political office? if not then by your logic maybe you shouldnt talk about political matters. its laughable that military people think civiilians opinions dont matter since they havent served.

and who cares if we need any more soldiers now or not...thats no reason to deny women the opportunity. and thinking of national security...there may come a time in 10 or 20 years where we are at war with a much more powerful enemy(China?) and we will need all the personnel that we can get. so better to start getting them integrated sooner rather than later. its not just an ethical issue its a national security issue.

jackie robinson is an analogy. its amazing how you guys cant see it. there was a time racists said we didnt need or want blacks in the military. that it would hurt the missions. and now we have sexists saying the same thing about women.

Look, it's late and I'm done arguing with you. I should have known better, but there're time times when I give in (against my better judgement). My issue with you is that you have no CONTEXT or FRAME OF REFERENCE when it comes to the military or military service (and I do when it comes to civilian life). Everyone who signs up does so taking an oath to support the constitution, and obey orders.....whether we like them or not. The problem I have with this new policy, and which you clearly articulated, is that it's about "opportunity", which is an entire different matter than accomplishing the mission. That is far down the list when it comes to military service. It's not a 9-5 job....it's not about "getting ahead". Folks who join for that reason are either sadly disappointed, or don't last long. And yet philosphers like you seem to believe that grafting civilian society (with all it's good, as well as bad) wholly onto the military framework should inherently be the ultimate goal. Sorry to tell you but there's not the way it works. There are plenty of theses out there which discuss the subject, so if you want actually learn about it, I'd suggest you read up. I'd ask you to take my word for it, but you won't....so I won't bother.

At this point, I'm content to agree to disagree, but apparently you'll probably just continue arguing. I don't have time to spend hours going back and forth with you about subjects you honestly don't know as much about as you believe you do. Feel free to keep posting if that's your wish, but I'm done....

Apparently YOU know more than everyone, so I do believe you should run for office and dictate policy. Us knuckle-draggers simply can't keep up with your superior intellect.

And so far as you comment regarding the President, I happen to be an independent who personally believes that both political parties are equally worthless. Nice try though....generalize much??

you are the one who is being sexist.

i said it was a guess. and typically when people start commenting on politicians at the top making wrong decisions these days its directed at obama.

Yup, I'm sexist.....that MUST be it. I firmly believe that women should be kicked out of the military. Isn't that EXACTLY what I said??? Oh, and while we're at it, I think we should re-segregate, because I have no African-American friends, and couldn't possibly see them serving along side me in the military. If you were so sad in your hyperbole you'd actually be amusing.....

And yes, you've master the art of generalization. You made a wild guess assumption that because I was in the military I was anti-Obama. Way to go, you're apparently no better than me afterall.....who'd have thunk it?