Pipe, that article does not pick apart the study at all. The fact the a few females did good and someone was of the opinion that the study is flawed changes things? Oh wow, the mixed unit did good on a few marches. I'm sure the guys in the fire fights are going to over look the poor fighting capabilities, because the mixed unit marched good what was it, 3 times? Get real. If they can't shoot and they can't carry you off the battlefield once you've been shot then they have no spot in combat.
Yes, i read the whole article. I only find one valid critic, which does not make a great argument against the US Marine Corp. Also this is a British news paper reporting on US military affairs. We US voters (those whom would vote for or against an amended draft) cant hold British papers very reliable to not be biased against our American military generals.
Tinfoil hat moment: This could be GOP political theatre in action. Im seeing a report on the New York Post questioning Hilary Clinton's position, because she hesitated to support it yesterday when asked. Back when she was senator, Clinton did support the draft for women on July 23rd, 2007 during the democratic debate.
British newspapers/websites are more interesting to read than american journalist papers, i'll give them that.
If they want to be in combat than they sign for the draft. Not like many will actually make it though
I think not......here is why. Physcological warfare is rough. I disagree with any woman in any combat role from any part of the world period. If a woman is in combat and taken prisoner, then the enemy could yes physically and emotionally torture them just as they do men....there is no segregation in just that. But lets look a bit deeper in the issue....is there a man out there now that would not be broken instantly seeing a female in that spot....yet I personally could easily justify in my head if another male were being tortured...no way I could allow a woman to take that abuse because of me.....women and children have no place in combat. Not that they cant handle it, just that its not right. Same principal is in play that we arent allowed to use napalm any more. The psychological torture is too great. Just my menial opinion, steps off soap box and waits for the incoming rants... Ps. Also in actual combat, I (men), would be way more inclined to jump in to protect. Our thought process would be out of whack due to instincts and could cause more deaths and or injuries. I have no data, just my thoughts....
Not tradition values, just corruption and greed in our government, our value aren't flawed, they worked we'll for 200 years and it only got tho bad because of our corrupted government
Hey. Medically retired USA Marine. Vet of 4 Deployments. Still have my right leg. Left one is somewhere in Iraq. To be clear: I went and fought of my own accord. I'm not for "selective service" for anyone.
U.S. Military is moving in a direction to put "LESS" bodies on the battlefield. Cyber warfare and drones will be the future of warfare ...drone aircraft, soon to be drone tanks and ships/submarines. Future warfare will be fought remote control. Arcade gamers (Xbox, Playstsion) will be the future fighters Things would have to go really south for the military to enact the draft again. It would take a "Red Dawn" scenario to take place for that to happen ...& that's never going to happen either (we'll go nuclear before that happens)
All this talk about including woman in the draft is a bunch of Republican "this for that" dribble... They were opposed to increasing roles for woman to begin with, so now it's like "Oh ok we gave you that now you are obligated to do this...." buncha BS
Dribble? They want equality, why not give them equality? No, I'm sure you support exceptions over equality. Typical.
It's a make press bill. Nothing in the constitution refers to gender just the forces both national and state.
Equality for what? For something that's never going to happen? YES 100% dribble and pure BS ...it's purely "partisan you owe us for that"