Pentagon Lifts Ban on Women in Combat

AndyDufresne · Post by **AndyDufresne** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:08 pm

What say ye?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/women-co ... d=18295570

[spoiler=Ill show ye][/spoiler]

--Andy

PLAYER57832 · Post by **PLAYER57832** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 7:23 pm

I have always said that while I don't want to see anyone fight, there is no longer any reason to deny women combat occupations just based on their gender.

/ · Post by / » Wed Jan 23, 2013 7:26 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:I have always said that while I don't want to see anyone fight, there is no longer any reason to deny women certain occupations just based on their gender.

Professional sperm donor?

PLAYER57832 · Post by **PLAYER57832** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 7:31 pm

/ wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:I have always said that while I don't want to see anyone fight, there is no longer any reason to deny women certain occupations just based on their gender.

Professional sperm donor?

lol.. good catch. Am now editing.

john9blue · Post by **john9blue** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 8:18 pm

we'll see how it works out. i can definitely see it reducing the effectiveness of male soldiers, but i've never been in the armed forces, so maybe they are capable of ignoring it?

BigBallinStalin · Post by **BigBallinStalin** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 5:28 am

john9blue wrote:we'll see how it works out. i can definitely see it reducing the effectiveness of male soldiers, but i've never been in the armed forces, so maybe they are capable of ignoring it?

To a certain extent, yes.

The military services also will have until January 2016 to seek waivers for certain jobs -- but those waivers will require a personal approval from the secretary of defense and will have to be based on rationales other than the direct combat exclusion rule.

Iliad · Post by **Iliad** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 9:09 am

john9blue wrote:we'll see how it works out. i can definitely see it reducing the effectiveness of male soldiers, but i've never been in the armed forces, so maybe they are capable of ignoring it?

Lol you're such a manchild.

DoomYoshi · Post by **DoomYoshi** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 1:47 pm

This is just a plot to get people to forget about The Invisible War.

Neoteny · Post by **Neoteny** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 5:46 pm

This was unexpected, but a good thing.

thegreekdog · Post by **thegreekdog** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 6:10 pm

Do you think there will be a lot of people against this?

Neoteny · Post by **Neoteny** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 6:18 pm

I wouldn't expect so. Compared to DADT, this feels like it should be a cakewalk. But there's no telling really.

notyou2 · Post by **notyou2** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 6:48 pm

I expect it will be equal pay, which they probably already have based on rank and skills, or something similar, so I'm in support of it.

john9blue · Post by **john9blue** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 8:23 pm

Iliad wrote:
john9blue wrote:we'll see how it works out. i can definitely see it reducing the effectiveness of male soldiers, but i've never been in the armed forces, so maybe they are capable of ignoring it?

Lol you're such a manchild.

and you are fucking delusional

but it's okay, most people are.

Just_essence · Post by **Just_essence** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 8:36 pm

Well, it'll be largely peaceful, that's for sure. But it's not going to be a smooth ride, that's also for sure. Why? 'Cause there's always the lingering problem of the entire population in the military that are either consciously sexist or unconsciously sexist. It'll disappear in time, but for now, it's still there.

Nobunaga · Post by **Nobunaga** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 9:25 pm

Allow me to be the first to be against it... well, partially and conditionally against it.

The day women are made to meet the same requirements, many of them physical, is the day I'm all for it. So when you've been shot in the gut and need to be carried a mile by your buddy, you'd know the woman in your foxhole can pull the job off.

At present, they need not meet those requirements.

chang50 · Post by **chang50** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:00 pm

Nobunaga wrote:Allow me to be the first to be against it... well, partially and conditionally against it.

The day women are made to meet the same requirements, many of them physical, is the day I'm all for it. So when you've been shot in the gut and need to be carried a mile by your buddy, you'd know the woman in your foxhole can pull the job off.

At present, they need not meet those requirements.

I'm ambivalent too,I know from civilian jobs men always end up doing the heavy lifting.

_sabotage_ · Post by **_sabotage_** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:22 pm

It must be part of the shock and awe.

The muslim whatever we call them to avoid war crime laws will be so surprised that a woman is shooting them it will be like a flash bang. On the other hand, when they catch and rape the crap out of them and send us videos, we might have a change of heart about equality in the forces.

john9blue · Post by **john9blue** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:27 pm

_sabotage_ wrote:It must be part of the shock and awe.

The muslim whatever we call them to avoid war crime laws will be so surprised that a woman is shooting them it will be like a flash bang. On the other hand, when they catch and rape the crap out of them and send us videos, we might have a change of heart about equality in the forces.

yeah, but who cares? we have progressive equality on our side!

and everyone knows that the most effective way to win a war is by being moral and fair.

chang50 · Post by **chang50** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:32 pm

john9blue wrote:
_sabotage_ wrote:It must be part of the shock and awe.

The muslim whatever we call them to avoid war crime laws will be so surprised that a woman is shooting them it will be like a flash bang. On the other hand, when they catch and rape the crap out of them and send us videos, we might have a change of heart about equality in the forces.

yeah, but who cares? we have progressive equality on our side!

and everyone knows that the most effective way to win a war is by being moral and fair.

The moral high ground can be a useful propaganda tool in wartime..

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:53 pm

/ wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:I have always said that while I don't want to see anyone fight, there is no longer any reason to deny women certain occupations just based on their gender.

Professional sperm donor?

Let's not talk about the future ... OK? :shock:

Because it is a lot more possible than most men care to admit.

BigBallinStalin · Post by **BigBallinStalin** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 11:08 pm

chang50 wrote:
john9blue wrote:
_sabotage_ wrote:It must be part of the shock and awe.

The muslim whatever we call them to avoid war crime laws will be so surprised that a woman is shooting them it will be like a flash bang. On the other hand, when they catch and rape the crap out of them and send us videos, we might have a change of heart about equality in the forces.

yeah, but who cares? we have progressive equality on our side!

and everyone knows that the most effective way to win a war is by being moral and fair.

The moral high ground can be a useful propaganda tool in wartime..

As soon as it is known that an organization is fine with killing civilians, then it really doesn't matter how many military women are in combat.

_sabotage_ · Post by **_sabotage_** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 11:18 pm

chang50 wrote:
john9blue wrote:
_sabotage_ wrote:It must be part of the shock and awe.

The muslim whatever we call them to avoid war crime laws will be so surprised that a woman is shooting them it will be like a flash bang. On the other hand, when they catch and rape the crap out of them and send us videos, we might have a change of heart about equality in the forces.

yeah, but who cares? we have progressive equality on our side!

and everyone knows that the most effective way to win a war is by being moral and fair.

The moral high ground can be a useful propaganda tool in wartime..

So we are setting them up for the fall? Our new mini 9/11 in a skirt.

Why are evil people so damn smart? I think I should just give up on humanity and join camp evil and f*ck over as many people as I can. Perhaps I can get a job at the CIA directing rape videos ahead of time, so when we need it it will be ready to go.

hegayheart · Post by **hegayheart** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 11:33 pm

THIS IS TOTAL ABUSE OF POWER... THIS IS RIDICULOUS... DMAJOR NEEDS TO BE RELIEVED OF HIS RESPONSIBILITIES.. DOES ANYONE KNOW HOW I CAN MAKE A FORMAL COMPLAINT??

D Major› hegay...you wanna go for a perma ban???
23:28:52 * Kjm077 quit (timeout)
23:29:19 ‹D Major› keep fukin' around

hegayheart · Post by **hegayheart** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 11:48 pm

there is no need for this kind of language ive seen dmajor bully other people as well

D Major · Post by **D Major** » Fri Jan 25, 2013 1:06 am

Bring it on....I don't bully people...I do however do my job when %^##%%^ like yourself enter LC

Pentagon Lifts Ban on Women in Combat

Pentagon Lifts Ban on Women in Combat

Re: Pentagon Lifts Ban on Women in Combat

Re: Pentagon Lifts Ban on Women in Combat

Re: Pentagon Lifts Ban on Women in Combat

Re: Pentagon Lifts Ban on Women in Combat

Re: Pentagon Lifts Ban on Women in Combat

Re: Pentagon Lifts Ban on Women in Combat

Re: Pentagon Lifts Ban on Women in Combat

Re: Pentagon Lifts Ban on Women in Combat

Re: Pentagon Lifts Ban on Women in Combat

Re: Pentagon Lifts Ban on Women in Combat

Re: Pentagon Lifts Ban on Women in Combat

Re: Pentagon Lifts Ban on Women in Combat

Re: Pentagon Lifts Ban on Women in Combat

Re: Pentagon Lifts Ban on Women in Combat

Re: Pentagon Lifts Ban on Women in Combat

Re: Pentagon Lifts Ban on Women in Combat

Re: Pentagon Lifts Ban on Women in Combat

Re: Pentagon Lifts Ban on Women in Combat

Re: Pentagon Lifts Ban on Women in Combat

Re: Pentagon Lifts Ban on Women in Combat

Re: Pentagon Lifts Ban on Women in Combat

Re: Pentagon Lifts Ban on Women in Combat

Re: Pentagon Lifts Ban on Women in Combat

Re: Pentagon Lifts Ban on Women in Combat