Rep. Patrick Murphy introduces bill to repeal DADT

[bobbythekidd]

Women are a threat to unit cohesion. Fact. I beleive gays would be a threat to it as well. It is my belief. Noone on this thread is going to change their mind and there is no middle ground to be reached. This is going to end in a stalemate. I'm done.

[dbackjon]

Women are a threat to unit cohesion. Fact. I beleive gays would be a threat to it as well. It is my belief. Noone on this thread is going to change their mind and there is no middle ground to be reached. This is going to end in a stalemate. I'm done.

First you bitch that no one challenges you. Now you bitch because we challenged you











Love ya (but not in a homo way)

[bobbythekidd]

Women are a threat to unit cohesion. Fact. I beleive gays would be a threat to it as well. It is my belief. Noone on this thread is going to change their mind and there is no middle ground to be reached. This is going to end in a stalemate. I'm done.

First you bitch that no one challenges you. Now you bitch because we challenged you Love ya (but not in a homo way)

I just couldn't stand your silence! I kept picturing you reading, shaking your head, clicking another thread, repeat. I knew you were on top of it, you just never said anything. It was driving me crazy.

TTBF, his baseless accusations, and his SGT buddy really don't matter to me, ON THIS TOPIC. He's a pretty smart poster other places, you just have to watch the spin job he puts on stuff.

[Col Hogan]

Women are a threat to unit cohesion. Fact. I beleive gays would be a threat to it as well. It is my belief. Noone on this thread is going to change their mind and there is no middle ground to be reached. This is going to end in a stalemate. I'm done.

Take a break, big guy...I'll try it for a while....

Women, for a large part, have damaged unit cohesion...except in some highly trained, specialized units...

Not because of any macho thing...but becuase to accommodate women, exceptions to policy have been made on a regular basis...and women in these units tend to be (my words) WHINY...

Women tend to go to sick call more for minor things a guy would "suck it up" for...and they become pregnent, which guys can't....both these things make units short-handed for short, or long, periods of time...

One exception I have found is in Air Force fighter units...female fighter pilots have been rather well accepted, as studies have found female pilots are as good or better than the men...and female fighter pilots have proven to be very competitive because THEY CAN WHUP the guys...they tend to avoid the other issues that females in support units do (whiney, get pregnent, etc)...

Standards must be real....some standards were set to keep women out, and those need to be taken down...but one example of a standard that was real (but kept women out of a type unit) was removed to allow women, to the detriment of units...

The Navy had a standard for being on a ship that you had to be able to carry 70 pounds up so many flights of stairs...it kept women off ships...women complained...the standard was removed/modified so women could serve on ships...

Now, why did the Navy have this standard....because a section of hose used in firefighting weighs 70 pounds, and every sailor on a ship is part of a damage control party and might have to carry a hose section during an emergency...that's a real standard...Guys who could not carry the required 70 pounds could not be on a ship and were assigned to a shore duty...

So, BTK is pretty much spot on about women...there are exceptions...and there are women who have served honorably and bravely...one recently received a Silver Star for gallentry in action...

Comments???

[dbackjon]

Regarding women - in any situation, whether it be police, fire, or the military, strength/abilities standards should NOT be lowered if there is a reason (like carrying fire equipment) for the standard.

[Col Hogan]

Regarding women - in any situation, whether it be police, fire, or the military, strength/abilities standards should NOT be lowered if there is a reason (like carrying fire equipment) for the standard.

But they have...and continue to be...to "break down barriers"...

Now, regarding gays...you all can claim "ignorance" until the cows come home...but IMHO, allowing openly gay people to serve will have an impact on unit cohesion..maybe not forever...but it will, since there tends to be a large percentage of those in the military opposed to gays serving...

Now, are you willing to serve in a unit that won't back you up jon? There's an axiom that men don't go into combat for their country, or wifes/girl friends or families...but for the guy next to them...that's what they fight for...

Would you go into combat in Afghanistan knowing the guys on your right or left don't support you??? Because if openly gay men are allowed to serve, there will be a case...one, two...I don't know how many...where that gay man won't come back from combat because........

Again, you can throw out facts that other countries have openly gay folks serving...it's fact...but it's not here...

Sorry, my friend...but this is one cause that needs to be handled carefully...and that means slowly...

[Chizzang]

Regarding women - in any situation, whether it be police, fire, or the military, strength/abilities standards should NOT be lowered if there is a reason (like carrying fire equipment) for the standard.

Agreed..
strength and endurance should never (NEVER) be lowered... for any reason - in fact they should be accelerated just like we honor education in the teaching fields - strength instincts and fighting skills should be honored in the military...

regarding being gay... I have no opinion - it's for the Military to decide... they set the battle standards they should call the shots / these men die in service and should be judged by their peers and selected as such...

it's a military issue not a political issue in my opinion