Panetta opens combat roles to women

Posted 670 day(s) ago 1211 Views 51 Replies
Results 1 to 50 of 52
Page 1 of 2 1 2
  1. #1

    Panetta opens combat roles to women

    Senior defense officials say Pentagon chief Leon Panetta is removing the military's ban on women serving in combat, opening hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs after more than a decade at war.
    The groundbreaking move recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff overturns a 1994 rule banning women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units. Panetta's decision gives the military services until January 2016 to seek special exceptions if they believe any positions must remain closed to women.


  2. #2
    Good. But stop w/the gender norming, especially in spec ops stuff.
    6 users like oucub23's post: brokebacksooner, McRib, OU48A, OUMallen, soonerintn, Stinger_1066


  3. #3
    McRib's Avatar
    Posts
    25,818
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Panetta opens combat roles to women

    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    Good. But stop w/the gender norming, especially in spec ops stuff.
    Yes, exactly this. This is why I lurve you.
    The following users like this post: oucub23


  4. #4

    Panetta opens combat roles to women

    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    Good. But stop w/the gender norming, especially in spec ops stuff.
    99.999% of women just physically could not make it through any of the spec ops training.

  5. #5
    McRib's Avatar
    Posts
    25,818
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Panetta opens combat roles to women

    Originally Posted by Jbaker View Post
    99.999% of women just physically could not make it through any of the spec ops training.
    I totally agree. There's no way I ever could. And quite honestly, I don't want someone who has been held to lesser standards working in those operations. It's dangerous for that person and dangerous for the team.
    3 users like McRib's post: DHF, okie52, oucub23


  6. #6
    Originally Posted by Jbaker View Post
    99.999% of women just physically could not make it through any of the spec ops training.
    I think you've got the number too high. Actually, you may not, b/c the truth is, 99.99% of men can't do it either. There are women that are super marathoners. Shooting is a skill that can be learned. I think female Delta is a very real and achievable thing for women, from what I know of selection.
    The following users like this post: Troker


  7. #7
    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    I think you've got the number too high. Actually, you may not, b/c the truth is, 99.99% of men can't do it either. There are women that are super marathoners. Shooting is a skill that can be learned. I think female Delta is a very real and achievable thing for women, from what I know of selection.
    Running a marathon or even an ultramarathon is not quite the same as a Spec Ops operator. Can she carry 60 pounds plus on her back plus a rifle, ammo, etc.? Could she then carry a 200 pound plus wounded man if need be? Could she handle hand to hand combat with a man who may be at least twice her size? Can she accept the possibility of being ****d, tortured, etc., if captured? If she can accept all the same risks and meet the exact same standards for men, then more power to her. I think the percentage of women that could do that are well below 1%.
    The following users like this post: Cabbage_town_kid


  8. #8
    Time to open up mandatory Selective Service registration to women now. Rostker v. Goldberg has been nullified.
    3 users like JCBoomer's post: Big Red One, bushmaster06, Teo9969


  9. #9

    Panetta opens combat roles to women

    Originally Posted by kssooner View Post
    Running a marathon or even an ultramarathon is not quite the same as a Spec Ops operator. Can she carry 60 pounds plus on her back plus a rifle, ammo, etc.? Could she then carry a 200 pound plus wounded man if need be? Could she handle hand to hand combat with a man who may be at least twice her size? Can she accept the possibility of being ****d, tortured, etc., if captured? If she can accept all the same risks and meet the exact same standards for men, then more power to her. I think the percentage of women that could do that are well below 1%.
    Martial arts were invented to enable smaller people to fight larger people. Most selection stuff is based on people that just won't quit, no matter what. There is less than 1% of men that qualify too.

  10. #10
    Originally Posted by JCBoomer View Post
    Time to open up mandatory Selective Service registration to women now. Rostker v. Goldberg has been nullified.
    No qualms with this.
    The following users like this post: oucub23


  11. #11
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    8,054
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Panetta opens combat roles to women

    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    Good. But stop w/the gender norming, especially in spec ops stuff.
    I think our generals are smart enough not to put people that cannot do the job in roles to do the job.

    (If not, we have WAY bigger problems than s in battle zones!)

  12. #12
    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    Martial arts were invented to enable smaller people to fight larger people. Most selection stuff is based on people that just won't quit, no matter what. There is less than 1% of men that qualify too.
    True. Which in relation means there is even smaller percentage of women who could pass training to do the job.

    As far as martial arts, lets use MMA fighters. You put Anderson Silva up against the female equivalent of Anderson Silva in MMA, who do you think is going to win?

  13. #13

    Panetta opens combat roles to women

    Originally Posted by kssooner View Post
    True. Which in relation means there is even smaller percentage of women who could pass training to do the job.

    As far as martial arts, lets use MMA fighters. You put Anderson Silva up against the female equivalent of Anderson Silva in MMA, who do you think is going to win?
    You're creating a false construct. Put Jet Li against me.

  14. #14
    okie52's Avatar
    Posts
    7,725
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Edmond, OK

    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    I think our generals are smart enough not to put people that cannot do the job in roles to do the job.

    (If not, we have WAY bigger problems than s in battle zones!)
    We've just recently seen generals that were happy to have women serve them in the right positions. Hooah!!!

  15. #15
    Nazgul's Avatar
    Posts
    2,267
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Minas Morgul

    Originally Posted by okie52 View Post
    We've just recently seen generals that were happy to have women serve them in the right positions. Hooah!!!
    Ah snap. Finally, someone with an original sexual euphemism

  16. #16
    Col.JimBeam's Avatar
    Posts
    358
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Rogers County

    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    I think our generals are smart enough not to put people that cannot do the job in roles to do the job.
    As long as that decision stays the generals.

  17. #17

    Panetta opens combat roles to women

    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    I think our generals are smart enough not to put people that cannot do the job in roles to do the job.

    (If not, we have WAY bigger problems than s in battle zones!)
    Probably not. There is so much pc nonsense infecting the military that I just don't see it. Basic training has been gutted. Hell, the guy that shot up Ft Hood was ignored bc of pc nonsense.

  18. #18
    KCRuf/Nek's Avatar
    Posts
    40,333
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Prairie Village, Ks.

    Just another example of the libs using our military for social engineering. I can't wait to see what BHO, Valerie, and the rest of the inner circle jerk have next.

  19. #19
    I read somewhere that their periods attract bears.
    The following users like this post: SoonerArtillery


  20. #20
    Dexa's Avatar
    Posts
    3,362
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Seoul, South Korea

    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    I think our generals are smart enough not to put people that cannot do the job in roles to do the job.

    (If not, we have WAY bigger problems than s in battle zones!)
    I think you give them too much credit.

  21. #21
    smot poker's Avatar
    Posts
    4,161
    Join Date
    Dec 2012

    Women do a lot of things better than men, fighting is not one of them. It is a shame that we put our servicemens lives in danger all in the name of political correctness.

    I guess we should now offer maternity leave for new fathers.

  22. #22
    KCRuf/Nek's Avatar
    Posts
    40,333
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Prairie Village, Ks.

    Originally Posted by smot poker View Post
    Women do a lot of things better than men, fighting is not one of them. It is a shame that we put our servicemens lives in danger all in the name of political correctness.

    I guess we should now offer maternity leave for new fathers.
    When your goal is to decimate the military it's all part of the plan.

  23. #23
    Dexa's Avatar
    Posts
    3,362
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Seoul, South Korea

    Originally Posted by smot poker View Post
    Women do a lot of things better than men, fighting is not one of them. It is a shame that we put our servicemens lives in danger all in the name of political correctness.

    I guess we should now offer maternity leave for new fathers.
    Well.. new fathers DO get paternity leave. Just in case you were wondering.

    Wife got 6 weeks, I got 2.

  24. #24

    Panetta opens combat roles to women

    Originally Posted by smot poker View Post
    Women do a lot of things better than men, fighting is not one of them. It is a shame that we put our servicemens lives in danger all in the name of political correctness.

    I guess we should now offer maternity leave for new fathers.
    I said in another thread, and I'll echo it here. There are places women can go that men cannot. Women have been used by the CIA and other intelligence agencies forever. If we don't already have the equivalent of an all female Delta unit, we are lax.

  25. #25
    Female Lieutenants Flunk Marine Corps' Fierce Infantry Training

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/katiedru...e-corps-women/


    Get Over It! We Are Not All Created Equal

    http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/a...-created-equal

  26. #26
    McRib's Avatar
    Posts
    25,818
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Panetta opens combat roles to women

    Originally Posted by ImTheDude View Post
    I read somewhere that their periods attract bears.
    Makes it easier to hunt bears.
    2 users like McRib's post: ImTheDude, kssooner


  27. #27
    smot poker's Avatar
    Posts
    4,161
    Join Date
    Dec 2012

    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    I said in another thread, and I'll echo it here. There are places women can go that men cannot. Women have been used by the CIA and other intelligence agencies forever. If we don't already have the equivalent of an all female Delta unit, we are lax.
    Women have been very effective core collectors for the CIA/SAD for a long time now, but I don't think they have been utilized in SOG.

  28. #28
    KCRuf/Nek's Avatar
    Posts
    40,333
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Prairie Village, Ks.

    Didn't I read somewhere that the military can give them a shot that eliminates the period for a year?

  29. #29
    smot poker's Avatar
    Posts
    4,161
    Join Date
    Dec 2012

    Originally Posted by KCRuf/Nek View Post
    Didn't I read somewhere that the military can give them a shot that eliminates the period for a year?
    Can we get oorah that shot?
    2 users like smot poker's post: KCRuf/Nek, Shooter


  30. #30
    Joint Chiefs Chairman: If Women Can’t Meet Combat Standards, Maybe Lower The Standards

    Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Thursday that with women now eligible to fill combat roles in the military, commanders must justify why any woman might be excluded – and, if women can’t meet any unit’s standard, the Pentagon will ask: “Does it really have to be that high?”

    Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/women-comb...#ixzz2J6Tgs1p5


    video at the link

  31. #31
    That didn't take long.

  32. #32
    We may just be totally ****ed.

  33. #33
    KCRuf/Nek's Avatar
    Posts
    40,333
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Prairie Village, Ks.

    Originally Posted by Teo9969 View Post
    We may just be totally ****ed.
    You're just realizing this?

  34. #34
    Fahooglegods's Avatar
    Posts
    5,344
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Right near da beach. Boy-eee!

    Re: Panetta opens combat roles to women

    It will be tragic once the first female operator is captured. Then Paraded around on TV after being brutally beaten and ****d. This country is in no way ready for that scene. Think Jessica lynch x20. Al Qaeda is going to make a very blunt point once they get the opportunity.
    The following users like this post: McRib


  35. #35
    Originally Posted by Fahooglegods View Post
    It will be tragic once the first female operator is captured. Then Paraded around on TV after being brutally beaten and ****d. This country is in no way ready for that scene. Think Jessica lynch x20. Al Qaeda is going to make a very blunt point once they get the opportunity.
    While true, there's a couple of things. The first is it should be the woman's choice to put herself in a position to be captured, as long as she is capable of holding the bar. Second, if our country sees what you're describing, perhaps they'll begin to realize what we are really dealing with with Islamic extremism.

  36. #36
    Woman are dumb. They had it made.

    Today, they have to work, doors don't open as much (of course I still do it), and now they gotta fight in combat. Idiots.

  37. #37
    Fahooglegods's Avatar
    Posts
    5,344
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Right near da beach. Boy-eee!

    Re: Panetta opens combat roles to women

    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    While true, there's a couple of things. The first is it should be the woman's choice to put herself in a position to be captured, as long as she is capable of holding the bar. Second, if our country sees what you're describing, perhaps they'll begin to realize what we are really dealing with with Islamic extremism.
    Oh I understand that fully. But the us is not ready to see one of its daughters having her head cut off on video. What exactly are we gonna do if it were to happen though? Invade their country and occupy it for 10+ years? We killed UBL and everyone cheered that we had finally won. We then lost 32 SEALs on a 47 crash. My point is, there is absolutely nothing we can do to defeat this faceless, uniformless enemy. No amount of spear rattling back home will change that.
    The following users like this post: zevogolf


  38. #38
    Originally Posted by kssooner View Post
    Senior defense officials say Pentagon chief Leon Panetta is removing the military's ban on women serving in combat, opening hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs after more than a decade at war.
    The groundbreaking move recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff overturns a 1994 rule banning women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units. Panetta's decision gives the military services until January 2016 to seek special exceptions if they believe any positions must remain closed to women.

    They will have to recruit in the corn belt, because the skinny ones will never be able to pull their own.

  39. #39
    Originally Posted by Fahooglegods View Post
    Oh I understand that fully. But the us is not ready to see one of its daughters having her head cut off on video. What exactly are we gonna do if it were to happen though? Invade their country and occupy it for 10+ years? We killed UBL and everyone cheered that we had finally won. We then lost 32 SEALs on a 47 crash. My point is, there is absolutely nothing we can do to defeat this faceless, uniformless enemy. No amount of spear rattling back home will change that.
    I categorically disagree that we cannot win this. I 100% agree that we cannot win this if we continue fighting as we have been.

  40. #40
    Fahooglegods's Avatar
    Posts
    5,344
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Right near da beach. Boy-eee!

    Re: Panetta opens combat roles to women

    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    I categorically disagree that we cannot win this. I 100% agree that we cannot win this if we continue fighting as we have been.
    How do you know how we have been fighting? It is a spec ops war. As reaching and damning as the media is they do not know the inner workings of that community. The common american knows next to nothing about how those individuals conduct business.

  41. #41
    Originally Posted by Fahooglegods View Post
    How do you know how we have been fighting? It is a spec ops war. As reaching and damning as the media is they do not know the inner workings of that community. The common american knows next to nothing about how those individuals conduct business.

    Elimination of on the ground assets has been happening for 20 years. You can't effectively combat what we're fighting w/o people close, on the ground. Additionally, shooting a terrorist in the face with a drone missile is less effective than catching them and squeezing their heads until they talk. We're also very poor in our approach to foreign policy--we aren't offering an effective alternative to what we're fighting. I'm not talking about operators and what they do--I'm talking about our entire approach to the problems we're facing.

  42. #42
    Originally Posted by kssooner View Post
    Joint Chiefs Chairman: If Women Can’t Meet Combat Standards, Maybe Lower The Standards

    Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Thursday that with women now eligible to fill combat roles in the military, commanders must justify why any woman might be excluded – and, if women can’t meet any unit’s standard, the Pentagon will ask: “Does it really have to be that high?”

    Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/women-comb...#ixzz2J6Tgs1p5


    video at the link

    Women Could Be Great Navy SEALs, Says Head of Special Ops

    The head of Special Operations Forces (SOF) says he supports the integration of women into the elite force. “It’s time to do this,” says the organization’s top officer, Adm. William McRaven.
    “We’ve had women supporting direct Special Operations for quite some time,” he added in remarks Tuesday morning at the Special Operations/Low Intensity Conflict conference in Washington.
    The necessity, he said, is ensuring that all special operators are in peak physical condition. “The one thing we want to make sure [we do is] we maintain our standards,” McRaven said.
    It’s a sentiment echoed among current and former special operators.
    Retired Lt. Col. Gary Sargent, a former SOF officer, says he supports integrating women into SOF, as long as they meet the physical requirements.
    The following users like this post: oucub23


  43. #43
    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    Elimination of on the ground assets has been happening for 20 years. You can't effectively combat what we're fighting w/o people close, on the ground. Additionally, shooting a terrorist in the face with a drone missile is less effective than catching them and squeezing their heads until they talk. We're also very poor in our approach to foreign policy--we aren't offering an effective alternative to what we're fighting. I'm not talking about operators and what they do--I'm talking about our entire approach to the problems we're facing.
    And how do women solve this issue you know so well???

  44. #44

    Panetta opens combat roles to women

    Originally Posted by zevogolf View Post
    And how do women solve this issue you know so well???
    Did I say it would? No. I didn't. I said women being in combat roles is a good thing if they can meet the same requirements that a man can. Do you disagree with that?

  45. #45
    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    Did I say it would? No. I didn't. I said women being in combat roles is a good thing if they can meet the same requirements that a man can. Do you disagree with that?
    That will be proved over time. I see more danger than good. Psychological issues on both sides concern me and I would not want a woman watching my back!!!

  46. #46
    Nazgul's Avatar
    Posts
    2,267
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Minas Morgul

    http://www.wnd.com/2003/11/21645/

    Jesscia Lynch has a story to tell us

  47. #47

    Panetta opens combat roles to women

    Originally Posted by zevogolf View Post
    That will be proved over time. I see more danger than good. Psychological issues on both sides concern me and I would not want a woman watching my back!!!
    Why wouldn't you want a woman guarding your back? You don't trust a female operator's judgement or finger?

  48. #48
    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    Why wouldn't you want a woman guarding your back? You don't trust a female operator's judgement or finger?
    I am sure there are women that I would rather have watching my back than some men. I think that this conversation would be enhanced if we heard from those that have been actually shot at in hot situations. This will take time to prove out! Isreali experiences would also be helpful.

  49. #49
    Nazgul's Avatar
    Posts
    2,267
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Minas Morgul

    Originally Posted by zevogolf View Post
    I am sure there are women that I would rather have watching my back than some men. I think that this conversation would be enhanced if we heard from those that have been actually shot at in hot situations. This will take time to prove out! Isreali experiences would also be helpful.
    How will this improve anything? You can find people who will say Yay and people who will say Nay. With money and time, you can find someone to argue anything intelligently and create enough doubt and confusion that the truth is never found out.

    In the end it comes to common sense: there are a few women out there who can perform the combat duties, and maybe these women don't mind all the dangers that come from being a woman in the military, so to these women the Obama administration, gives them the chance to have equal rights with their male counterparts.

    This is absolutely a 100% political move, but I don't see it hurting the military in any way.

  50. #50
    [/QUOTE]This is absolutely a 100% political move, but I don't see it hurting the military in any way.[/QUOTE]

    You are totally correct as long as ONLY a FEW women participate. DEAD women on the nightly telecasts will be a hell of alot more than politics!!!!

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 25
    Last Post: December 24th, 2013, 02:04 AM
  2. OU women's soccer opens 2013 in Tennessee
    By Jenni 5 in forum Bob Barry's Press Box
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 23rd, 2013, 03:10 PM
  3. Women suing over ban on combat exclusion
    By OnlyOneOklahoma in forum ThunderDome
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: November 30th, 2012, 04:21 PM