- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
ACLU sues over policy barring women from combat - chicagotribune.com
The American Civil Liberties Union and four servicewomen sued the U.S. Defense Department on Tuesday to end a ban on women in combat, calling the military the last bastion of discrimination by the federal government and saying modern warfare has already put women in the line of fire.
modern warfare doesn't have the clear boundaries that may have once existed. It will be interesting to see how this plays out
The women in the Navy I talk to don't want to be in combat.
Oh well that settles it then. Navy Pride has talked to like six women who don't want to be in ground combat, so we should ban all women from ground combat.
Interesting thing about that. Considering they are both adults and we do not have slavery anymore the decision to go into combat should be theirs, though as a husband or father I am sure your opinion would be welcome in THEIR decision making process. Your wants and desires in this situation are really only relevant as an opinion and other than that you should butt out.I would never want my wife or daughter in combat but that is just me. Since one is a lawyer and the other is and RN that is not likely to happen...By the way they both served in Iraq.
Hrm... I don't know, I've played Modern Warfare and I didn't see any females at all in it.ACLU sues over policy barring women from combat - chicagotribune.com
The American Civil Liberties Union and four servicewomen sued the U.S. Defense Department on Tuesday to end a ban on women in combat, calling the military the last bastion of discrimination by the federal government and saying modern warfare has already put women in the line of fire.
modern warfare doesn't have the clear boundaries that may have once existed. It will be interesting to see how this plays out
Yes, for those who aren't cowards.War has boundaries? Ever?
Historically men go to war to protect their women and children from wars barbarism. Women do not belong in a combat situation period. Having said that though those little gook women were bad ass cold blooded killers so I could be wrong. And gook is not a racial slur, it was the term of the day like kraut or Jap, war words are not infraction worthy, I don't think.:neutral:
18. Hate Messages - Hate Messages delivered via threads, posts, signatures, or PM's are forbidden at Debate Politics. The Moderator Team defines a hate message as any willful wording intended to ridicule, debase, degrade, intimidate, or incite violence and/or prejudicial actions against a group of people based on their race, gender (including transgendered), ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. Determined violations of this rule will be subject to incur an immediate revocation of membership. Posting links to any website deemed by the Moderator Team to contain hate messages will also constitute a violation of Rule 18.
Moderator's Warning: |
And if you think something should be allowed by the rules, but aren't certain if it is, in-thread is not the place to discuss it. |
ACLU sues over policy barring women from combat - chicagotribune.com
The American Civil Liberties Union and four servicewomen sued the U.S. Defense Department on Tuesday to end a ban on women in combat, calling the military the last bastion of discrimination by the federal government and saying modern warfare has already put women in the line of fire.
modern warfare doesn't have the clear boundaries that may have once existed. It will be interesting to see how this plays out
War has boundaries? Ever?
But women deserve the right to get blown apart, too!
Why on Earth would ANYBODY fight for the "right" to place themselves in harm's way, just to say they can?!? There is only one advantage to a front-line combat assignment: medals, without which senior officers cannot make General. And since there are affirmative action type programs in place for female officer selection, I don't see what the problem is. They can already take full advantage of all the military has to offer, without the worst part of the work.
Also, as a side-note: "war words" are an active device used to dehumanize the enemy, for it is far easier to kill a "towel head" as opposed to a "human being of Arabic descent."
Historically men go to war to protect their women and children from wars barbarism. Women do not belong in a combat situation period. Having said that though those little gook women were bad ass cold blooded killers so I could be wrong. And gook is not a racial slur, it was the term of the day like kraut or Jap, war words are not infraction worthy, I don't think.:neutral:
Great, just what the Military needs. More civilians with no military experience telling us what we need. Same reason we now get issued thousands of dollars of equipment that stays in its original packaging, stuffed in a ruck in the back of a closet.
Soldiers are soldiers.
Women in the military have the same responsibilities as their male counterparts. If they can fight for their country, and die for their country, they deserve equality.
I cry to see our veterans return with their limbs and their minds destroyed because of what they have suffered... but I cannot and will not dismiss the sacrifice of women who have served with honor, simply because they lacked a penis in the field of battle.
There is only one advantage to a front-line combat assignment: medals, without which senior officers cannot make General.
The entire purpose of having a standing military is to keep war away from women.
I would agree with you except that in this case the women bringing the law suit ARE military.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?