DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Law School Team to Fight U.S. Ban on Women in Combat, Draft

**UitEz0Qo** · 12-07-2011, 08:27 PM

I agree that JOB PERFORMANCE standards should be the same.

Note: Job Performance Standards are not the same as Fitness standards.

Do the men who are non-vol'd into infantry "ruin" it?

At least one of the lawyers has served, but that's beside the point. If they get around to filing, they are going to need clients who have standing.

This argument is a little naive I feel. It basically allows anyone to discriminate on any basis.

"There is no right to serve" does not mean "The military is therefore free to discriminate on any basis it or congress decides" nor does it mean "Servicemembers therefore have no rights"

Before the services or congress took up DADT repeal...it was pushed in the courts.

Let's face it, women are already in combat.

Well the military has discriminated based on the fact there is no right to serve. Look how long it took to get homosexuals able to serve openly. Look how long it was segregated by race and gender. Is it "right" for them to do that? No it's not right - but they've done it and they were able to because the military is supposed to take the best of the recruiting pool. I never said servicemembers have no rights - what I said is that serving in the military is a privilege -not a right. Just like there's no "right" to have a driver's license. There's no "right" for a lot of things we have in this country. But we have them.

In today's military, what men are "non vol'd" to join the infantry? I never said that anyone would ruin the infantry. This was my original comment: My point on the forcing is that some people have commented in the past that if it is opened up, then you're going to get women that don't want to be infantry at infantry AIT and "ruining" it or some weird shit.

There have been people who "think" it will "ruin the infantry" if women are allowed to serve. I say you recruit only those who can meet the same standards that are already in place. That's it. The only thing that's going to change is that if a female wants to be infantry, she would have the choice as a MOS. That's not saying she has to do it. Now she just has more options when determining which service to join.

I know women are already in combat and that's the point some people are getting at. But let's see how many women they can get to support their student law case.

12-07-2011, 08:27 PM	#12
UitEz0Qo Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 325 Senior Member	I agree that JOB PERFORMANCE standards should be the same. Note: Job Performance Standards are not the same as Fitness standards. Do the men who are non-vol'd into infantry "ruin" it? At least one of the lawyers has served, but that's beside the point. If they get around to filing, they are going to need clients who have standing. This argument is a little naive I feel. It basically allows anyone to discriminate on any basis. "There is no right to serve" does not mean "The military is therefore free to discriminate on any basis it or congress decides" nor does it mean "Servicemembers therefore have no rights" Before the services or congress took up DADT repeal...it was pushed in the courts. Let's face it, women are already in combat. Well the military has discriminated based on the fact there is no right to serve. Look how long it took to get homosexuals able to serve openly. Look how long it was segregated by race and gender. Is it "right" for them to do that? No it's not right - but they've done it and they were able to because the military is supposed to take the best of the recruiting pool. I never said servicemembers have no rights - what I said is that serving in the military is a privilege -not a right. Just like there's no "right" to have a driver's license. There's no "right" for a lot of things we have in this country. But we have them. In today's military, what men are "non vol'd" to join the infantry? I never said that anyone would ruin the infantry. This was my original comment: My point on the forcing is that some people have commented in the past that if it is opened up, then you're going to get women that don't want to be infantry at infantry AIT and "ruining" it or some weird shit. There have been people who "think" it will "ruin the infantry" if women are allowed to serve. I say you recruit only those who can meet the same standards that are already in place. That's it. The only thing that's going to change is that if a female wants to be infantry, she would have the choice as a MOS. That's not saying she has to do it. Now she just has more options when determining which service to join. I know women are already in combat and that's the point some people are getting at. But let's see how many women they can get to support their student law case.
	Quote