Women To Serve On US Submarines,

[Justin Case]

Women To Serve On US Submarines, Congress Nod Awaited
2/24/2010 3:20 AM ET



(RTTNews) - The US defense department proposes to permit women to serve on board submarines, media reports said Tuesday quoting senior officials.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates is understood to have written to the Congress informing it of the Navy's plan which could see women sailors serving on nuclear submarines as early as in 2011.

Although women constitute about 15 per cent of the US Navy's 336,000 plus strong staff and are deployed on warships, they are barred from serving on board submarines due to their cramped conditions under which even beds are shared by the crew in shifts.

If the proposal was cleared by the Congress, woman naval officers will be the first to make the grade since officers have separate quarters in the Navy. The Congress has 30 days to give its nod for the measure.
The move coincided with US Army Chief of Staff General George Casey's statement to the Congress that it was high time that the rules preventing women from combat roles were reviewed.

"I believe it's time that we take a look at what women are actually doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. And then we look at our policies," he said.

Women are still not allowed to serve in combat roles in the US Army despite critics pointing out that they faced the same kind of risks and dangers encountered by their male counterparts.
http://www.rttnews.com/Content/Gener...=B1&Id=1220398

[Justin Case]

Waddaya Think Crash ? Is this a good Idea ?

[BENESSE]

Anyone who is qualified for the job should serve.

[Rick]

Discrimination of any kind not only hurts those discriminated against but also the service as a whole. Let me give you a sound example. During the 1930's and 1940's Hitler ordered some 6 million people be put to death. Most were Jewish but there were also others based on heritage, religion, etc. Let's assume half of those were men...3 million. Let's assume half of those were men of fighting age...1.5 million. Just for the heck of it let's cut that in half to appease those that don't like my math. 750,000. What could Germany have done with an additional 750,000 soldiers?

[Justin Case]

This is true, But is a Submarine big enough to accommodate both sexes ? would there be separate living quarters ? or, will they just be professional enough to share the showers so to speak ?

[2dumb2kwit]

Heck yeah. In fact, if they have enough room, I think they should have one for every guy on board. I mean think about it.....with all that these guys are giving up, to protect us, it's the least we could do for them.

(Yes...I'm just kidding! I just wanted to get B rung-up. LOL)

[Justin Case]

so you are saying, Let Hookers work on subs ?

[glockcop]

They can go down there all day long if it's up to me . Yall have filthy minds. I meant they can "offer their service". Stop it! There ya go again .

[finallyME]

I am a chauvinist pig. Whether I really am doesn't matter, but I might as well admit to it up front because I am sure some will say I am anyways.

I am against women in subs. I am also against women in combat roles, or close to it.

"I believe it's time that we take a look at what women are actually doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. And then we look at our policies," he said.
I agree with this statement, but not in a way he intended. I think we should retract a lot of jobs that women have in the military and keep them from even being close to combat. In Iraq, this would mean they are limited in convoy operations, for example.

For some background info, I was in Iraq as a truck driver. There were many female soldiers in my unit, with many participating in the normal everyday operations of either driving a truck, or maintaining our equipment, etc. I also saw many other female soldiers doing various other MOS'. In other words, I have seen females "in action" in the military in situations that have a potential for combat.

My view point doesn't rest on; are they capable or are they qualified? I only see, why should they? To me, I see it as respecting women and not placing them in a situation of potential personal harm or having to kill someone. I put them on a pedestal and try to protect and preserve their precious and valuable feminine traits of kindness, sympathy, empathy, and love. It is the same reason why I hold the door open for them, or cover them with my umbrella and let me get wet.

So, let the flaming me begin. I am probably the only one with this opinion. And to contradict myself completely, I think gays should be able to serve in the military, in all aspects.

[doug1980]

I am a chauvinist pig. Whether I really am doesn't matter, but I might as well admit to it up front because I am sure some will say I am anyways.

I am against women in subs. I am also against women in combat roles, or close to it.

"I believe it's time that we take a look at what women are actually doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. And then we look at our policies," he said.
I agree with this statement, but not in a way he intended. I think we should retract a lot of jobs that women have in the military and keep them from even being close to combat. In Iraq, this would mean they are limited in convoy operations, for example.

For some background info, I was in Iraq as a truck driver. There were many female soldiers in my unit, with many participating in the normal everyday operations of either driving a truck, or maintaining our equipment, etc. I also saw many other female soldiers doing various other MOS'. In other words, I have seen females "in action" in the military in situations that have a potential for combat.

My view point doesn't rest on; are they capable or are they qualified? I only see, why should they? To me, I see it as respecting women and not placing them in a situation of potential personal harm or having to kill someone. I put them on a pedestal and try to protect and preserve their precious and valuable feminine traits of kindness, sympathy, empathy, and love. It is the same reason why I hold the door open for them, or cover them with my umbrella and let me get wet.

So, let the flaming me begin. I am probably the only one with this opinion. And to contradict myself completely, I think gays should be able to serve in the military, in all aspects.

I agree with you. To add to it, men and women serving together will pose as a huge distraction. It's human nature to have sexual urges and tendicies, and those urges will cause many problems in close combat and close quarter environments. How do I know this, it happened to me. I met my now wife on a deployment and although I am thankful for this and glad it all worked out it was a huge distraction. But this is just my opinion.

[glockcop]

I am a chauvinist pig. Whether I really am doesn't matter, but I might as well admit to it up front because I am sure some will say I am anyways.

I am against women in subs. I am also against women in combat roles, or close to it.

"I believe it's time that we take a look at what women are actually doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. And then we look at our policies," he said.
I agree with this statement, but not in a way he intended. I think we should retract a lot of jobs that women have in the military and keep them from even being close to combat. In Iraq, this would mean they are limited in convoy operations, for example.

For some background info, I was in Iraq as a truck driver. There were many female soldiers in my unit, with many participating in the normal everyday operations of either driving a truck, or maintaining our equipment, etc. I also saw many other female soldiers doing various other MOS'. In other words, I have seen females "in action" in the military in situations that have a potential for combat.

My view point doesn't rest on; are they capable or are they qualified? I only see, why should they? To me, I see it as respecting women and not placing them in a situation of potential personal harm or having to kill someone. I put them on a pedestal and try to protect and preserve their precious and valuable feminine traits of kindness, sympathy, empathy, and love. It is the same reason why I hold the door open for them, or cover them with my umbrella and let me get wet.

So, let the flaming me begin. I am probably the only one with this opinion. And to contradict myself completely, I think gays should be able to serve in the military, in all aspects.

I agree. When I worked the street and had to go into a bad bar fight or semi riot I sure did not want a "daisey" for a partner. If I got hurt I know a "soft leg" would not be able to drag/carry my wounded a$$ to safety. I think a women partner is more of a liability than an asset. My attention is on making sure she does not get clobbered instead of focusing on my own safety because criminals/predators will go after the smaller and weaker first. I want someone that is as strong or stronger than me fighting at my side PERIOD! I had to break in a woman rookie a few times. One time this particular woman rookie goes off on a spell about how women can do anything men can do. I stopped the car, ordered all 5'5" and 120 lbs of her out and as we stood at the front of the patrol unit I said, "Punch me one time and try to knock me out......Then it will my turn". Her face turned white as she ate a huge piece of humble pie. It was a quiet ride the rest of the day. Sorry if this offends the ladies but "average" women have no business in fighting role IMO. Yall take care.

[BENESSE]

My view point doesn't rest on; are they capable or are they qualified? I only see, why should they? To me, I see it as respecting women and not placing them in a situation of potential personal harm or having to kill someone. I put them on a pedestal and try to protect and preserve their precious and valuable feminine traits of kindness, sympathy, empathy, and love. It is the same reason why I hold the door open for them, or cover them with my umbrella and let me get wet.

Respect appreciated, pedestal wise.
Keep opening those doors and holding umbrellas for the ladies.
But that respect ought to include protecting their right to (if qualified) serve their country in whatever capacity they see fit, just like anyone else.

[Mischief]

Will give a new meaning to hot bunking.

[nell67]

Whats the difference of having a woman serve on a sub,and having a gay man serving??? Probably only difference is that YOU arre not distracted by the gay man in the next bunk over from you (although he may be distracted by YOU) but if it was a woman,you would allow your thoughts to stray???

Difference between man and animal is his ability to control his behavior so long as he is not of a deminished mental capacity.

[Rick]

Same arguments, different group.

What if they WANT to serve?

[trax]

I believe in the right of any individual to live his or her life as he or she determines as long as harm isn't brought upon others and if harms is brought, live with the consequences that your society have deemed appropriate, or don't live in a society. I also know of several instances where animals are capable of controlling their behavior better than most people I've met.

[Rick]

Yeah, but they live 240 miles from the nearest animal so it's easy for them.

[nell67]

I'm saying let them serve,if they wish to serve,the only reasons for them NOT serving up until this point are all MAN made reasons.

[Rick]

I really don't get it. What's wrong with them serving? Serving breakfast, lunch, dinner, beer?

[nell67]

I really don't get it. What's wrong with them serving? Serving breakfast, lunch, dinner, beer?

Pig,pig,pig......oink.