Margret Thatcher, Janet Reno: yes

Britiney Spears, Jennifer Aniston: no

Woman are as capable as men at waging war.  However, I think women need more concrete evidence (than men do) of the necessity to wage war before they will fight.  If she perceives an immediate, personal danger to herself, her home or her children a woman may fight to the bitter end.  Fighting for oil or honor won't cut it for most women. 

Matt

I used to think there was NO concept worth dying for.  The old phrase "better red than dead" pretty much summed up how I felt.

That was when I was 19.  Now 40 years later, I realize that the freedom of speech, the freedom from religion, and the freedom to think as I choose are worth defending and dying for if necessary.

In addition,  the defence of my children and grandchild in the face of immediate, genuine danger is  also worth dying for.

Dusty

You misunderstand me completely.  It's the threat from the  ultra conservative right that I'm afraid of.  In addition,  there are some outside threats (such as the attack on Pearl Harbor) that must be defended.  Don't you agree?

I think very few women are physically able to be in combat and not be a hindrance.  They should have the same qualifiers as men to get a combat position.  I saw the weakening of physical standards in the Fire Service years ago in order to hire women and the tax payers get screwed financially and in quality of service.   I can only remember two females that I thought were physically up to the task.  This was reality not chauvinism.  Put them in combat if they meet  the same standards required of men without lowering the standards of both in order in get get females in.

Job 1 of the armed forces is protection of our country. Kill or be killed is one of the first things taught. To think otherwise is naive.

The absolute best way to tell if a Recruiter is lying is to watch their lips...............If they're moving, the Recruiter is lying. ;-)

When I was in the Navy, the Women were filling all of the good billets (read, shore duty) while guys were being handed back-to-back Cruises. The last three years that I was in the Navy, I was at Sea 28 months of it. I went out on 7 different ships. I wasn't even a Sailor. I was in Naval Aviation and attached to a Squadron based in Norfolk, Va.

Great Life...........................Alone............. .........At Sea...........................With Men.............

That suits me just fine.

There were men (?) who were too rubbery/gooey/spinless/sissy, etc. to be anything but in the way, when I was in the Navy.

The only woman on the ships that I went to sea on, was my Helicopter Pilot. She was the first Female Helicopter Pilot in the U.S. Navy (so far as I know). I could tell a lot of stories. She was a natural, and could outfly most of the other Pilots. I haven't seen Anne since I got out of the Navy (almost 20 years ago), but I still think about her and miss her..............GOOD PILOT!...............DAMN GOOD PILOT!

I'm glad to see Equal~Equal. Maybe now, some of the guys can get a decent shore duty billet.

No matter what a recruiter promises to anyone, man or woman, it is to naive to think you will never end up in combat.

There is a great deal of cross training going on in the services. You may be a diver in the Navy and end up doing security work on land somewhere. The idea is to be flexible in training and job duties.

Dusty..I could see Anglo's point.  Whether or not I believe something is right (ie women on combat), if I joined the military I would expect that at some point I would have to go into combat.  That's why, if one doesn't believe in fighting, violence, war, etc, one should not join the military.  By it's very nature, it's function is to defend....however that may be.

As for my own beliefs..I don't believe women should be in ANY job where they put others at risk by their lack of physical ability.  I'm 5'2 and in (cough) younger days, never weighed over 100 pounds.  No matter how dedicated I was to a job, I could never carry an injured soldier out of harms way.   I probably couldn't have packed the amount of weight they are required to tote in the field.  I'm perfectly capable of handling other jobs in the military and it only makes sense to put people where they can do the most good.  In actual combat I could probably have been a sniper but everyone needs to be realistic..it's not sexist to admit you aren't physically able to do a particular job.

My ex was drafted so he didn't get a choice other than to agree to NCO school.  From his OJT he was sent to Korea where he monitored a radar site on the DMZ for a year.  Imagine the useful training he got out of that.  Everyone was just itching to put a radar operator to work in civilian life.  :-)

There is more than just 'learned' behavior involved John. Men and women certainly think differently from learned role playing, but biologically, they are just different critters as far as thought processes go. Men are more visual spacial, physical, and violent on the whole. Men were the hunters. There are always exceptions, and that's why it should boil down to plain ol' capability. There are quite a few very good women pilots these days for instance.

There are many issues that make the fightin' end of the military mostly men, and not all of it is due to capability. Just the fact that you mix the sexes in a unit is a problem unto itself. You don't want your 19 year old warriors thinking about anything other than warrioring. (An arguement might be made against that theory by way of the Spartans. They are considered some of the hardest fighting military men that ever lived, and there was lots of homosexual behavior going on between battles. The Greeks, on the whole, found nothing wrong with that activity, and thought you might even fight harder for your lover than for your comrade. Obviously, America's Puritan roots wouldn't like that idea, and therefore it should rightly not become a distraction to the military). The military also realizes that, right or wrong, pc or not pc, women getting killed in combat will irk the American Public more than men. Or even women being held captive. You have to balance political correctness with what is good strategy. I would be inclined to believe it might be better if we had women leaders more than women fighters.

As the military evolves into a more computerized machine, you may actually see more women in combat roles. Men are more likely to perform well in hand to hand combat, but the military could benefit from a less reactive woman in some scenarios. Which is why I think women are more valuable in a reflective mode than a reactive one, and we might do better with them doing the diplomacy part. Us men are too egotistical. Not our fault, it's biological.

Didn't you guys hear?  We're outsourcing our military now:

http://www.iht.com/articles...

Outsourcing military used to be called using "mercenaries."  Nothing new there..just don't hire the French.

One thing about mercenaries is that they KNOW going in that there will be combat.

Oh..by the way.  Anyone who thinks the only difference between men and women is the ability to bear children and a little extra upper body strength, obviously has never been married.  :-)

And no emotional difference?  Hoooooo...where have YOU been?

A couple comments about the comments:

Listen people... it is FREEDOM OF RELIGION, NOT FREEDOM FROM RELIGION.

Whoever said that personality differences in men and women is learned behavior has studied neither nature, nor history.

These "learned" personality differences exist in EVERY culture EVER on the face of the earth.  Oh yeah,  male and female animals share in these "learned behaviors".

I think if a woman (or anyone) has the right to vote, she has the obligation to serve. Puting women in combat is another story.

Are men superior? No. Do they deserve the same rights as anyone else? Most Definitely so.

There are two things that stick in my mind though:

How the other soldiers react to the loss of a female. It is a proven fact that it is a bigger blow to moral for male soldiers to lose a female soldier but even that can be questioned.

The one thing that cannot be questioned is the sheer biology of it.  Soldiers on the front lines go upwards of two months without taking a shower. When women do this it causes physiological problems that do not occur with males.

If there isn't freedom *FROM* religion, there isn't freedom *OF* religion. 

.

Plenty of people have studied personality differences *AND* think that it's learned behavior.  Nearly *ALL* human behavior is learned.  You're damned right "it can be questioned," and I do so question your "proven fact." 

Freedom of religion: Regardless of what you think it SHOULD be it is freedom OF religion. The purpose of freedom OF religion is to keep the state from mandating a required religion, that’s it! This is why the doors of the SCOTUS have the 10 commandments printed on them... without God to endow upon us inalienable rights, those rights are bestowed not by God but by the government and the government can be changed and therefore our rights can be changed and the whim of the government.

Research: The government did a study on the effect of moral on troops and women were part of the study; it was concluded that male soldiers have an internal desire to protect their female counterparts and losing them has a higher psychological impact. We studied it in psychology; I will not go into it much more because as I said, studies are subjective and can be contested.

Physical problems: You did not contest my other point:  Women have a physiological problem with not showering for 30-60 days. It can cause problems that do not exist for males.

Psychological differences: There are certain mental differences between men and women of all species including humans. Women tend to be more protective and cautious.  Women are more selective in their mates than males are; males are more aggressive and prone to violence; the list goes on and on.  I find it kind of weird that these "learned traits" are the same in nature and humans; we must have all gone to the same classes!  I also find it hard to believe that many of these "learned traits" are common amongst all walks of life; even isolated tribes of people with no connection to the outside world.

Maybe a bit of study in psychology and sociology would open your eyes a bit.