World Affairs Board - View Single Post

Anon · 03-29-2005, 09:51 AM

"Then I guess updated DoD Congressional reports are not credible, and I shouldn't believe everything in them I read."

You're entirely misreading that report Julie.

There is nothing new about the support units, just their proximity to the line units. Their duties are still exactly the same as before, they're just closer.

The women in the report that was posted are at issue because of their proximity to the line units, NOT because of their role.

A supply clerk, tank mechanic, truck driver, medic or whatever, even if embroiled in the heat of a firefight is NOT, repeat NOT a combat arms soldier.

SpecOps, Infantry, Artillery/FO, Armor, and Engineers are the ONLY combat arms forces in the US Army and USMC.

Support units can see combat(see the battle of the bulge), but they are NOT combat arms troops.

Combat Arms soldiers are held to a much higher physical and discipline standard, and are far better trained.

A typical light infantryman in a combat environment must be able to carry over 200lbs of equipment and still complete a 20 mile road march at a blistering pace, almost regardless of weather, rest levels, the amount of food they've had, whatever.(And the actual performance required can be much higher in actual combat).

Most MEN can't do that without being in excellent physical and mental shape.

As stated earlier in this thread in a poll of national law enforcement officers the men were on average 56% stronger(i could be off by a few % points here). The disparity among men and women in the military is likely even higher, since the average soldier is in much better physical shape than the average cop.

Just as the average soldier is in much better shape than the average cop, the average combat arms soldier is likewise in much better shape than the average support soldier.

Therefore it is highly likely that the 56% in the police poll would be significantly higher, perhaps as much as 100%.

As far as women filling active ground combat roles, the closest you're going to find in Iraq is female MPs escorting convoys. However, these are motorized forces, and therefore many of the inherent disadvantadges of the fairer sex are heavily minimized.

Look, there's a reason men are not allowed to fight female boxers in the ring. There's a reason there are no women in the NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL.

And each and everyone of us here knows the reason, and it's got nothing to do with discrimination.

03-29-2005, 09:51 AM	#149 (permalink)
Anon New Member Join Date: 08-03-03 Posts: 0	"Then I guess updated DoD Congressional reports are not credible, and I shouldn't believe everything in them I read." You're entirely misreading that report Julie. There is nothing new about the support units, just their proximity to the line units. Their duties are still exactly the same as before, they're just closer. The women in the report that was posted are at issue because of their proximity to the line units, NOT because of their role. A supply clerk, tank mechanic, truck driver, medic or whatever, even if embroiled in the heat of a firefight is NOT, repeat NOT a combat arms soldier. SpecOps, Infantry, Artillery/FO, Armor, and Engineers are the ONLY combat arms forces in the US Army and USMC. Support units can see combat(see the battle of the bulge), but they are NOT combat arms troops. Combat Arms soldiers are held to a much higher physical and discipline standard, and are far better trained. A typical light infantryman in a combat environment must be able to carry over 200lbs of equipment and still complete a 20 mile road march at a blistering pace, almost regardless of weather, rest levels, the amount of food they've had, whatever.(And the actual performance required can be much higher in actual combat). Most MEN can't do that without being in excellent physical and mental shape. As stated earlier in this thread in a poll of national law enforcement officers the men were on average 56% stronger(i could be off by a few % points here). The disparity among men and women in the military is likely even higher, since the average soldier is in much better physical shape than the average cop. Just as the average soldier is in much better shape than the average cop, the average combat arms soldier is likewise in much better shape than the average support soldier. Therefore it is highly likely that the 56% in the police poll would be significantly higher, perhaps as much as 100%. As far as women filling active ground combat roles, the closest you're going to find in Iraq is female MPs escorting convoys. However, these are motorized forces, and therefore many of the inherent disadvantadges of the fairer sex are heavily minimized. Look, there's a reason men are not allowed to fight female boxers in the ring. There's a reason there are no women in the NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL. And each and everyone of us here knows the reason, and it's got nothing to do with discrimination. Last edited by Anon : 03-29-2005 at 10:15 AM.