English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I m asking this because in doing a debate at my school!
Can you ppl help me !!:) thatnks for answer if you did.

2007-10-26 03:28:46 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

19 answers

Well considering the number of women in Iraq who have already been in combat and decorated for valor.

You'd have to say yes.

Now if your asking if women should be allowed in the infantry, thats another story.

2007-10-26 03:32:02 · answer #1 · answered by jeeper_peeper321 7 · 1 0

I really hate this question, its such a hotly debated one. This was one of the topics we had to debate in Airmen Leadership School. I personally don't believe that women should be on the front line. I believe in equal rights but I also believe that there are some situations the we don't need to put our women in. Nothing against their ability, but I believe that it becomes a distraction for there male counterparts. The men will be instinctively driven to defend the women. Also most women are not physically strong enough to do some of the things required in combat ie. drag a fallen soldier to safety. The largest reason I don't believe that they should be allowed in the front line of combat is because when men are captured they are usually beaten but with women you would also have to worry about rape.

2007-10-27 10:06:49 · answer #2 · answered by thewedge226 2 · 1 0

I think they can as anybody can do anything they desire. However, are they as physically strong and mentally capable as a man to do it? I don't think. By this i mean most women with the exception of very few are born with natural physical strength that when compared to the average woman is greater. Mentally i also feel as though men's brains are encoded more so for war and killing when it comes down to the differences between male and female physical abilities and encoded brains. Women are by nature more emotional. Therefore, killing would not be as easy. I also feel as though we need to protect our women. Since the beginning of time this was the norm in most societies. We protect them because we are more capable of protecting. If the majority of women were more physically enhanced and were less emotional than men then it would be vice versa and women would be protecting men. This is a tough topic to debate so give your teacher a check mark for the day. He/she is going to have a heated debate and discussion with this one. Good luck!

2007-10-26 10:37:03 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

My daughter is serving in Iraq. She is a truck driver and has to deliver supplies to other bases. She isn't involved in direct combat, but she still has to deal with ieds, mortar attacks, and being shot at. There was an attack on Camp Victory a couple of weeks ago and a woman Staff Sergeant was killed. My daughter was in a building that was hit by mortars, thank god she survived..Direct combat no, but serving in a war zone is dangerous.

2007-10-26 10:41:30 · answer #4 · answered by John 6 · 0 0

Yes, the only thing I think they can't do is be in the Marines and Navy Seals, but I'm not totally sure. I have a friend interested in the Marines and he says women can't join, because there first in combat, but women can join the Army which is in combat.

2007-10-26 10:35:29 · answer #5 · answered by $~*Fearless*~$ 3 · 0 0

(I am assuming you are talking about the US Military)

Women do go into combat already.

They are just not allowed to be infantry or armor. But they are MPs, Civil Affairs, Truck Drivers, Medics, Translators, even in Field Artillery and Combat Engineers.

Women may not be the ones tasked to break in doors, (except for MPs maybe) but they do fight alongside the infantry.

There are several reasons why they are not allowed in Infantry right now, and it basically comes down to two things:

1) Physical capability. Infantry is almost all upper body in one way or another. The vast majority of women are not built for that. In particular, the female hip is a big problem. The most common injury for female basic trainees in regular basic training it stress fractures in the hip or femoral head. This is caused by road marching with heavy weight. In basic training that weight is limited to 30lbs or 1/3 of thier body weight (whichever is lower.) Even with this light load over 10-15km, females develop hip fractures. 10-15km is considered only a medium distance in the military.

A femoral hip fracture or a hip fracture can seriouly impact a womans ability to have children in the future and can seriously affect other activities in general... walking and running for example.... for the rest of their lives.

For infantry, you carry more then 30lbs on your person, not even counting what is in your back pack.

For two years I was Basic Training Company commander.
In the future, as things get lighter, it may be possible as things get lighter. As things are now, its not possible.

2) The second reason is money. Things usually come down to budgets. Canada experimented with women in combat arms in the 1980s. Out of 80 trainees, only 2 passed. You pay for 80, you get 2. The reason why, sure a female athelete can do this job, but how much of the military aged female population is a female athelete?

It could be possible to slowly train females up to a standard of a female athelete, but again, that takes time and money. Expecially if there was a draft situation, you dont have time to do that.

I was a basic training company commander for two years. Out of my female trainees, 25% could not meet or were injured doing regular basic training standards. Only about 10% could score higher then the low end males on the PT test using an even scale. (Females and Males used different score charts normally, my comparision is using the male chart).

Over all, women do serve in combat. They may not be the ones breaking down the door, but they are often the one on the .50cal machine gun covering the team that is breaking down the door. They do a fine job in the field and have a great impact on the war effort.

2007-10-26 10:53:37 · answer #6 · answered by mnbvcxz52773 7 · 0 0

No, they would be a distraction to combat troops. Imagine been on the front line and you have more than a work relationship with the woman who is fighting next to you. You would be a liability to the rest of your section. The same goes for homosexuals in my opinion. It's a dangerous job and any sentimentality would make it even more so.

2007-10-26 10:33:52 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

It all depends on the person and time. 3 out of 5 of the worlds best snipers were women. as long as they are trained right i have little problem with women going into combat. As long as they are constantly getting checked out they should be in good shape. personally i dont want to have a woman saving my life when she cant control her emotions. also i am not sexist.

2007-10-26 10:45:22 · answer #8 · answered by Jack 2 · 0 0

Yes, women can go into military combat only if they are deemed to have the necessary skill to handle a combat situation.

2007-10-26 10:32:01 · answer #9 · answered by civil_av8r 7 · 0 0

can they? sure. should they? my twin brother was in the US Army for several years. he told me that when they would go into the "field" for training, the women were transported back to the base regularly because of hygiene issues. he also told me it used to piss off the guys who hadn't showered in days , if not a week or so, to hear the girls talking about where they're going to have lunch (burger king or pizza), what was coming on TV that they could watch during the "base trip", etc...... I'm not sexist or anything. but SHOULD they go into combat?

2007-10-26 10:37:08 · answer #10 · answered by andy h. 4 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers