I do not believe in using women in combat, because females are too fierce.
I had medevacked so many women off the battlefield that I knew that it was a misnomer to say that women weren't in combat. I had friends that were Marines that were taken to fight the enemy. They weren't just firing in defense of their position.
I have no problem with women in the military, if that's what they want to do.
Women are part of peace keeping troops in countries like Liberia.
Women have long found themselves grieving for the dead and caring for the wounded during and after war, but … as more and more women become war fighters themselves, they too face danger and see horrors, often with the added burden if sexual harassment and worse at the hands of their fellow warriors—burdens aggravated by official indifference.
The brave and capable women who served in Iraq and Afghanistan have performed admirably.
If we need women in our defense forces, we must not need much defense.
I think women are too valuable to be in combat.
No country in history ever sent mothers of toddlers off to fight enemy soldiers until the United States did this in the Iraq war.
South Korea first allowed women into the military in 1950 during the Korean War. Back then, female soldiers mainly held administrative and support positions. Women began to take on combat roles in the 1990s when the three military academies, exclusive to men, began accepting women.
Forcing women in or near land combat will hurt recruiting, not help.
Many don't think that there are women serving in combat roles. Others think that women who do serve in combat shrink in fear when the bullets fly. I know differently.
Women are needed in the military because there aren't enough soldiers, and we're seeing more women serve.
We have women in the military, but they don't put us in the front lines. They don't know if we can fight, if we can kill. I think we can. All the general has to do is walk over to the women and say, 'You see the enemy over there? They say you look fat in those uniforms.'
Generally speaking, men are held in great esteem in all parts of the world, so why shouldn't women have their share? Soldiers and war heroes are honored and commemorated, explorers are granted immortal fame, martyrs are revered, but how many people look upon women too as soldiers?
I think it would be a great challenge to work on a military game which featured a female lead character. Since female soldiers are now being allowed on the frontlines, we're actually in danger of reality overtaking games!
Every country that has experimented with women in actual combat has abandoned the idea, and the notion that Israel uses women in combat is a feminist myth.
Women have always been in combat. We had women who won the Silver Star in World War II.
And while national military forces have historically resisted the full participation of women soldiers, female talent has found plenty of scope in revolutionary and terrorist groups around the planet.
Body armor is meant to fit snug to the body to stop shrapnel and absorb a bullet's impact. Armor designed for a boxier male frame does not fit properly on the overwhelming majority of females, who have a very different stature and body type than their male counterparts.
Women in the war. We can't win without them.
Women were needed in industry and the military. See {584783}.
We will never know exactly how many women disguised themselves as men and fought in the Civil War. At the close of the hostilities, it was estimated that approximately 400 women had managed to enlist, but this number is almost certainly too low.
There is scarcely a town or school in Russia from which boys have not run away to the war. Hundreds of girls have gone off in boys' clothes and tried to pass themselves off as boys and enlist as volunteers, and several have got through, since the medical examination is only a negligible formality required in one place, forgotten in another.