[Krackers87]

Wow, does it never occour to annyone that instead of saying yes or no, they should give them a ****ing CHOICE

[icespeed]

another reason women traditionally have not served in armies is because they're the ones who have the babies. if you kill off all the wombs (and future children) what are you fighting for, in the end? of course its all different now so that particular argument doesn't really hold- mothers don't die in childbirth as often, there aren't as many stillborns, medicine's improved a bit, women can get IVF after menopause...

[Rictor]

The very action of giving them a choice is a yes vote, that's the whole point.

[Krackers87]

wait, so can you choose to be in combat or not when you sign up?

[Rictor]

As far as I know, yeah. You can pick a job speciality, everything from a cook to a mechanic to a sniper, and if you don't want combat then, to the best of my knowledge, you simply don't pick a combat job.

[NGTM-1R]

Everyone goes through Basic, so in theory you can be assigned to just about anything. However, they make an effort to put people in jobs they're suited for. It's just good sense to do so. Generally, even if you do end up in a combat position, you can probably get a transfer out if it turns out that combat severely disagrees with you. You don't want to be there, and the Army doesn't want you there if you're not going to be fighting well. You get transferred to a non-combat position.

The thing is, the women who are fighting in Iraq? They're in non-combat positions. Therein lies the hook. Combat rarely makes distinctions between logistics troops and combat infantry. They all wear the same uniform, and they all have guns, and they all have a roughly equal chance of getting shot at since the Army integrates its logistics units with its shooters.

[WMCoolmon]

I can't see it being any different. Unless there's some sort of draft in effect, why on earth would you want someone on the battlefield who isn't motivated to be there?

[Thrilla]

Originally posted by ngtm1r
Everyone goes through Basic, so in theory you can be assigned to just about anything. However, they make an effort to put people in jobs they're suited for. It's just good sense to do so. Generally, even if you do end up in a combat position, you can probably get a transfer out if it turns out that combat severely disagrees with you. You don't want to be there, and the Army doesn't want you there if you're not going to be fighting well. You get transferred to a non-combat position.
 

You have no clue.

You sign up for a job when you sign the contract.  All contracts are 8 years, but active duty personnel can go into the IRR(Inactive Ready Reserve) after 4 years and the Reserves it is 6.  The IRR is where you are on the Army's "Black List" which is a list of people they can call up until they have completed the entire 8 years.  You pick what you want to do, but the fine print says the Army can change that job to fit the needs of the Army.  Unless you are metally or physically ill you don't have a choice of being in combat.  It doesn't matter anyways.  Whatever you are from being a 11B(infantry rifleman) to a 92Y(Unit Logistics Specialists) or even being a Doctor you are going to get shot at over there.  They don't care what your job is, but they have noticed it is easy to attack the Combat Support and Combat Service Support personnel over the actual infantry because of the lack of training, but those lessons are being learned and training on the IET(Intial Entry Training) level is being changed up and the problems are finally being addressed.

[Mongoose]

Regarding this whole topic, anyone else remember the Jessica Lynch story?  She wasn't in active combat, yet she was still attacked and kidnapped.  I don't think she weighed much more than 100 pounds; if I remember correctly, after the attack and while she was in her wrecked transport vehicle, she attempted to use a nearby rifle but was unable to.  I have absolutely no problems with women being in any part of the armed forces.  What I do have a problem, with, is putting anyone into a potentially dangerous situation who isn't physically fit/trained enough to handle themselves there.  As long as men and women go through the same exact physical and tactical training and are held to the same standards, I don't see how any distinctions should be made based on gender.  If, however, there are unequal standards, then you can't expect people to be able to perform the same tasks.