The Frontier Sixshooter Community Message Board - Agreed, men don't send their wives and daughters...

Agreed, men don't send their wives and daughters... (reply)

rob — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 20:43:54 +0000

to fight their battles. Not only that but they would be a huge distraction in combat. I've heard all the arguments and then I've listened to Marines who have been there. Haven't yet heard one of them in favor.

All female stike team is in the works (reply)

nv25qJohn Meeker — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 02:31:07 +0000

and the PMS assault units are reserved for assignments where the goal is to wear down the enemy and eventually just cause them to give up -- when they realize that everything they do or say is wrong.

Does this M16 make my butt look fat? (reply)

Byron — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 21:01:30 +0000

IDF chicks rock!

Byron

Good one (reply)

Jhenry — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 20:12:31 +0000

I am dead set against females in combat roles, that being said, imagine this.

Imagine some hadji outfit that get whooped by christian women with no men involved. Whooped good and humiliated by folks who didn't even think the hadji's were worth sending men for. A delicious thought of degradation. Moozies being led in restraints through the city past their dead comrades in murder by Jane from South Dakota and Tamika from East St.Louis with a tampon in her helmet band by the bug juice. Ha.

Still against it.

All female stike team is in the works (reply)

Drago — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 17:36:23 +0000

Would they be considered a "crack outfit"? Only deployed every 28 days?

that's the end game right there! (reply)

Rob Leahy — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 02:42:15 +0000

weaken the US Military by other means to achieve parity with 3 rd word regimes...

Yes, that has consistently been the approach to making (reply)

Hobie — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 02:37:46 +0000

such policy changes "work"...

Worst part is that inevitably the standards... (reply)

mcassill — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 02:04:40 +0000

Will be lowered so that enough women can pass them.

Perfect for desert warfare............ (reply)

Byron — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 00:56:16 +0000

Mean as snakes and retaining water...........

Byron

Women cleared for combat.....Heard a rumor (reply)

Wildcat — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 23:47:08 +0000

That could be potential for war crimes at a certain time of the month!

Women cleared for combat.....Heard a rumor (reply)

MR — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 23:28:46 +0000

from a female LSU ROTC graduate, fresh butter bar about to go to advanced traing and deploy.

Talk was that an all female stike team is in the works.

"In combat" means different things to different people. (reply)

Hobie — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 22:13:17 +0000

To some it means they'll be infantry"men". That is not logical. Most women have difficulty rising to the level of strength of 18-22 year old males. I think, too, for the same reasons, women and homosexuals should be excluded but since the later ain't the way of the world... However, that isn't all there is to "combat".

There's attack helicopter, fighter, and bomber pilots, there's gun crews on deep water vessels including nuclear attack submarines. If they can do the job, that is what counts.

And then, there's those who are in combat even if their positions aren't "combat" positions. The first that come to mind are the MPs. If I remember correctly a female lead her MP company against Noriega's soldiers in Panama. It wasn't intended, but it happened. Also, there's people like Lori Ann Piestewa, Jessica Lynch and Shauna Johnson who will be targets BECAUSE of their "rear" echelon support jobs.

Bad idea all around. Another Leftest ruse to weaken us (reply)

TomC — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 21:28:59 +0000

I agree. Women do not belong in combat.

Bad idea all around. Another Leftest ruse to weaken us (reply)

Rob Leahy — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 21:16:05 +0000

Militarily.

Women cleared for combat.....

Byron — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 21:04:40 +0000

http://gma.yahoo.com/pentagon-allow-women-combat-203823961.html

Byron