3 convicted and condemned murderers are awaiting the guillotine. Criminal number 1 has his head locked in place and the executioner asks him if he has any last words.

"No, let justice be served".

The lever is pulled and the recently sharpened blade comes flying down. Incredibly, the blade stops just an inch or 2 above his neck.

The executioner states, "the bi-laws of the state allow only one attempt at execution. As such you are now pronounced a free man. Go"

Crinimal 2 now lays his head on the block after the blade has been re hoisted. Once again the executioner asks number 2 if he has any last words.

"No let justice be served".

The lever is pulled and once again the sharpened blade stops an inch or 2 above his neck.

The executioner states, "the bi-laws of the state allow only one attempt at execution. As such you are now pronounced a free man. Go"

Number 3 slides his head in and the executioner once again asks if he has any last words.

"Well yeah I do. I've noticed that someone tied a huge knot at the top of the rope which is creating problems today".

.....Well congrats to all you women libbies today. You and your ilk have hoodwinked Panetta into a horrible decision. enjoy the rope being "un knotted".

Women on the front lines isn't anything new. You don't believe they should be allowed? Smh. I guess they shouldn't be allowed to vote either, right?

GoChiefs;1375560 wrote:Women on the front lines isn't anything new. You don't believe they should be allowed? Smh. I guess they shouldn't be allowed to vote either, right?

Voting equals fighting on the front lines? Really? Women can do a lot of things men can do. Women can do some things better than men. Women should never be put on the front lines of battle. Never, ever, ever.

If they want to, who cares? Isn't that freedom of choice?

ernest_t_bass;1375586 wrote:Isn't that freedom of choice?

Obviously it's only freedom of choice if a man allows it.

Footwedge;1375582 wrote:Voting equals fighting on the front lines? Really? Women can do a lot of things men can do. Women can do some things better than men. Women should never be put on the front lines of battle. Never, ever, ever.

I didn't say they equaled the same thing. Obviously it means your stuck in the ways of the past.

Why shouldn't women ever be put on the front lines? There is nothing on the front lines a man can do that a woman can't.

Women in combat is a joke. Panetta is an idiot. Just wait unti a bunch of pregnancies magically occur right before deployment or women complaining about cramps while grenades are going off left and right.

They have to let women fight on the front lines because they have so many front lines now they don't have enough men for them. It was either let women fight or bring back the draft, and they don't want to do that yet until they disarm the people first.

sleeper;1375652 wrote:Women in combat is a joke. Panetta is an idiot. Just wait unti a bunch of pregnancies magically occur right before deployment or women complaining about cramps while grenades are going off left and right.

The pregnancy issue is a legitimate question...the cramps comment is ignorance. Women can handle pain better than a man, and I think there is science to back that up.
(edit:there are conflicting studies on the issues)

I don't see why a women could not serve on the front line if she wants to....provided she can pass the necessary rigorous training with NO handicap for gender. If she can pass the same tests that make a man fit for combat, let it be.

Finally men on the front lines will be able to enjoy a good sandwich!

^^^You mean "sammich" don't you?

gut;1375728 wrote:Finally men on the front lines will be able to enjoy a good sandwich!

I left a comment similar to that on my hometown newspapers Facebook page regarding the story on Friday. They ended up printing the comment in the actual newspaper yesterday. Had to laugh about that.

HitsRus;1375718 wrote:I don't see why a women could not serve on the front line if she wants to....provided she can pass the necessary rigorous training with NO handicap for gender. If she can pass the same tests that make a man fit for combat, let it be.

Will they have to stand to pee?

^^^^No, but they'll have to do it...as well as shi** in front of everyone.

GoChiefs;1375593 wrote:I didn't say they equaled the same thing. Obviously it means your stuck in the ways of the past.

Why shouldn't women ever be put on the front lines? There is nothing on the front lines a man can do that a woman can't.

That's bs. Maybe your sister should play nose tackle for the Browns too, no? Let's have token women on the Cavs as well.


Fact...women are physically weaker than men. They are not as capable. As for your other nonsense, I'm all for progress when it makes sense. This hairbrained idea makes absolutely no sense.

For once in my life...I'm in agreement with the fatman on the AM dial.

Fact...there are men on the front lines now that are no more physically capable than a woman. Your argument about physical strength is absolutely weak and invalid when there are men the same size as women fighting on the front lines day in and day out. Like I said, get out of the ways of the past. It's not nonsense when it's the truth. If my sister could play for the Browns, more power to her. If a woman could play for the Cavs, more power to her.

Tell me something that a man that is the same physical size as a woman can do that a woman couldn't do.

I personally can't wait for some women to be lit up and then the feminist Nazi's start complaining that the US military isn't doing enough to protect women in combat. You literally cannot make this stuff up!

Footwedge;1375744 wrote:That's bs. Maybe your sister should play nose tackle for the Browns too, no? Let's have token women on the Cavs as well.


Fact...women are physically weaker than men. They are not as capable. As for your other nonsense, I'm all for progress when it makes sense. This hairbrained idea makes absolutely no sense.

For once in my life...I'm in agreement with the fatman on the AM dial.

There are plenty of stupid, weak and skinny dudes in the military. I do agree that they should have to pass the same tests, which would eliminate most. But there are women capable.

And not everything on the front lines requires brute strength.

WebFire;1375753 wrote:I do agree that they should have to pass the same tests, which would eliminate most.

This.

ccrunner609;1375761 wrote:All of you "women should be allowed"......so you agree with this scenerio:


We have a captured group of Americans in some safe house in the middle of some Afghan city....they send in a team of 8 women to free them and take out their captures.....you guys good with sending all women in to do a job?

So your argument is an unlikely hypothetical? Genius!

There are women that would run circles around you and I in anything. Get over it.

ccrunner609;1375761 wrote:All of you "women should be allowed"......so you agree with this scenerio:


We have a captured group of Americans in some safe house in the middle of some Afghan city....they send in a team of 8 women to free them and take out their captures.....you guys good with sending all women in to do a job?

If they are capable of doing the job, then yes. Why wouldn't it be OK?

ccrunner609;1375765 wrote:Why should it be "unlikely"? Women want to be equal....treat them as equal. If they can hold their salt in regards to the job then they should be able to pull off these high risk missions. I bet they would fail more then 1/2 the time.

What you just said is true for men and women. If they can't do that job, they shouldn't be. Be treated equal is not the same as being unqualified and still getting to do it.

Cleveland Buck;1375655 wrote:They have to let women fight on the front lines because they have so many front lines now they don't have enough men for them. It was either let women fight or bring back the draft, and they don't want to do that yet until they disarm the people first.

Unless the military dramatically lowers standards this is not the case. This is a political decision plain and simple.

Now I will say this. Its one thing to train and arm qualified women for defense of the homeland its quite another to send them off to invade a foreign country.

ccrunner609;1375765 wrote:Why should it be "unlikely"? Women want to be equal....treat them as equal. If they can hold their salt in regards to the job then they should be able to pull off these high risk missions. I bet they would fail more then 1/2 the time.

And you would fail 100% of the time, stick boy.

Footwedge;1375744 wrote:That's bs. Maybe your sister should play nose tackle for the Browns too, no? Let's have token women on the Cavs as well.

Fact...women are physically weaker than men. They are not as capable.

It is a fact that the average woman is physically weaker than the average man. It is not a fact that there are no women who are stronger than men currently serving in the front lines. With a population of 300 million, it isn't that tough to find women with the physical attributes necessary to make good soldiers.