- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 1/16/25 at 10:51 am to Lutcher Lad
On the front lines I would say no. Having a woman in combat where men are present creates circumstances where the men will be more concerned about the woman’s safety and not with the task at hand. This, will create a greater risk for the entire team. As far as serving in any other role, I would be fine with it. I wouldn’t want to put anyone at a greater risk than they already are.
Posted on 1/16/25 at 10:52 am to makersmark1
My son graduated Marine boot camp last year. I served as well from 2000-2004 in the Marines before all this nonsense started (thank God). He was the first platoon to have integrated training. He said the women were not good..at all. Not to mention when I went to his graduation they had so many broke females on crutches etc. compared to the males. This is boot camp we are talking about so imagine a combat scenario? Oh, I did a tour in Iraq in 2003. My answer is an emphatic NO. I do not care what they can and cannot pass.
Posted on 1/16/25 at 10:56 am to Lutcher Lad
Wasn't not a fan while on active duty in the 80s and 90s, now it has to be even worse.... it was always a pain in the arse, more than double the work for the men in the field, during training, even in garrison duty.
Posted on 1/16/25 at 10:57 am to Lutcher Lad
i haven't served a second in the military but any woman that wishes to serve, please be my guest
with that said, the standards should not change for combat readiness. changing standards of what the infantry should have to meet confirms that there are biological differences between man and woman, and that lowering standards for one sex to become combat ready isn't combat readiness at all.
with that said, the standards should not change for combat readiness. changing standards of what the infantry should have to meet confirms that there are biological differences between man and woman, and that lowering standards for one sex to become combat ready isn't combat readiness at all.
Posted on 1/16/25 at 11:05 am to TrueTiger
quote:
The armed forces needs nurses, secretaries, logistics staff and all manner of paper pushers.
In the rear with the gear
Posted on 1/16/25 at 11:05 am to Lutcher Lad
No to female boots on the ground in a theater of war. If allowed then no substandard protocols for females etc. it is had enough for males as it is.
Posted on 1/16/25 at 11:08 am to Lutcher Lad
There are plenty of slots they can and should fill, combat ain't one regardless of the exceptions.
Posted on 1/16/25 at 11:14 am to SlowFlowPro
That’s is the jist of the conversation, they can’t complete the same training as the men can. Period the answer is no and there should not even be a discussion
Posted on 1/16/25 at 11:17 am to ole man
Ukraine is fighting for its very existence. How many women do they have in their front line combat units? There's your answer.
Posted on 1/16/25 at 11:19 am to Lutcher Lad
If they can't carry a 200 lb. wounded soldier off the battlefield, then they shouldn't be on the battlefield.
Posted on 1/16/25 at 11:19 am to tigafan4life
quote:
tigafan4life
You maam are a patriot.
Posted on 1/16/25 at 12:17 pm to damnstrongfan
quote:'If I have to carry him off the battlefield...
If they can't carry a 200 lb. wounded soldier off the battlefield, then they shouldn't be on the battlefield.
Posted on 1/16/25 at 12:22 pm to terd ferguson
I would think logistics add to the problem. Between time of the month, hygiene before physical fitness.
Posted on 1/16/25 at 12:43 pm to Lutcher Lad
I was in infantry.
I say combat is nowhere anyone should be.
If it is a necessity I would put only men in that position.
I say combat is nowhere anyone should be.
If it is a necessity I would put only men in that position.
Posted on 1/16/25 at 12:46 pm to Lutcher Lad
quote:
Women in Combat: What say you?
As a former infantry guy myself, my answer is Absolutely Not.
I'm not even going to talk about "standards", but I am going to talk about something probably not thought about or overlooked.
During a firefight if someone in your team is wounded, your job is to continue with the firefight and gain fire superiority. Your buddy, who's been shot/blown up/etc... is responsible for his own care until that fight is over. Unless he's in a position where a medic can get to him. Women in direct combat roles will shake that dynamic up. Most men will have a stronger "urge" to help that female. In the long run that will end up getting more of our soldiers injured and killed.
Posted on 1/16/25 at 12:48 pm to Lutcher Lad
NAY, NAY, is what I say.
This post was edited on 1/16/25 at 1:02 pm
Posted on 1/16/25 at 1:00 pm to Lutcher Lad
Not ground troops, not firefighters or police.
Posted on 1/16/25 at 1:56 pm to Lutcher Lad
Anyone who has been on any deployment knows this is not a good idea lmaoooo
Page 6 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News