Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
Oh, okay. That has nothing to do with what I said, though.
Look, I'm not saying force women into all combat roles. I'm saying allow women who are capable of doing certain jobs to do those jobs. If that means there will be virtually no women infantry, then fine. But that isn't the only combat role out there. It doesn't make sense to prohibit capable personnel from doing jobs (whether they be women or homosexuals), especially when you have the spectre of a draft hanging over your head.
|
Sorry, I was addressing like three different posts. I'm retarded.
...
My point is: Why change the flow of things in the military for the three women out of a thousand that can handle a particular job such as infantry, combat engineer, artillery, etc. Just because you can tweak something doesn't mean you should. I mean, we are talking about a job where people are supposed to kill others using weaponry that probably scares the man-dress off Allah. Men are better suited for the job. I'm all for equality, but let's get real. It's a messy job.
The "Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell" (DADT) policy, from what I've deduced from serving, is mostly about maintaining military decorum. The military is just as hard on heterosexuals as it is on homosexuals when dealing with "obscenity." Just look at the deployment rule book... no pornography. You can get UCMJ for having porn overseas these days. Can't see your wife for a year... but uh, we can't have you ogling a Playboy. Conservative through-and-through, the Army isn't a whole lot of Vietnam-style fun these days.
Draft: ...but we (U.S.) don't. It is my feeling that no politician in their right mind would ever try to pass a draft again. Short of WW3 with China, I don't see a draft going down anytime in the future. You can't send rich white college kids to war! That's
unamerican!