I think not ..obviously.
Why? Because for one, women have a mindset...and so do men.
Women on the frontline would be demoralising to men and unsafe for all concerned.
Why not have children on the frontline also? Some children are as capable as any adult male. There would be many an eight yr. old child (male or female) who could pass the required tests.

Men aren`t made for the horrors of war either, I know, I`ve nursed enough shattered souls to know.

Quote:

Men aren`t made for the horrors of war either, I know, I`ve nursed enough shattered souls to know.

Then anybody who passes the required testing should be available to serve in our "Attack force"?

And let's get this right.. We are an "Attack force", not a defense force.
We haven't needed to defend our nation since the 1940's.

We have the most bs cu@t of a so-called nation in the history of mankind.
We are all about resources and deceptive political correctness directed at our inhabitnts in order to allow our resources to be exploited.

Go outside of this nation, and you receive more freedom, less political correctness, and a better view of how meaningless this nation (AustraLiar) really is to the rest of the world.
We're bunnies and nothing else.

Nancy Wake, look her up and tell me again how women are not suitable for the front line.
Russia had female snipers durring WWII. Check out Lyudmila Mikhailivna Pavlichenko.
Anyone capable and willing to serve  in our Defence Force at home or abroad, should have the opportunity to do so.

You ain't listening.
8yr olds explode themselves in the name of Allah.

..they blow up so quickly u know.

Not in the name of my God they don't.
Women and children are priority..otherwise there is no priority.

Amadd wrote on Apr 16^th, 2011 at 1:08am:

Why not have children on the frontline also? Some children are as capable as any adult male. There would be many an eight yr. old child (male or female) who could pass the required tests.

Many? Really?

How about none.

I doubt any 8 yr old could pass the entry requirements for entry level military service in the ADF, let alone front line combat roles; what a pant load.  >:(

BTW this issue was already posted about a week ago and discussed in detail.

Why not.
I mean, its not like USA soldiers kill other soldiers who wear sandles by staying as far away as possible from physical contact and just push buttons via high tech weapons of mass destruction like Terminators.

I think most Iraqi Soldiers never really got to see live USA Soldiers, it was all just machines (Clone Wars?).

It doesn't take much physical energy to kill people these days. Just pull a trigger or push a button from a very safe and hidden position.
Cowardly and gutless if you ask me, especially when the Military just does the whim of Politics and doesn't protect rare and endangered species upon the planet.
Sea Shepard has more balls than the Australian Navy.

Also, if you had women working at Alcatraz, chances are that the tunnel would have been spotted quickly.

I think that the Australian Military can't cope with women in their midst because:
1. They have to work harder.
2. They have to work harder for all the right reasons.
3. They have to treat women properly and put away their little 'redneck/gay' tendencies.

There are probably many butch lesos who'd be great at the job -
they could carry a 100lb pack all day.

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Apr 18^th, 2011 at 1:42pm:

Why not. I mean, its not like USA soldiers kill other soldiers who wear sandles by staying as far away as possible from physical contact and just push buttons via high tech weapons of mass destruction like Terminators. I think most Iraqi Soldiers never really got to see live USA Soldiers, it was all just machines (Clone Wars?). It doesn't take much physical energy to kill people these days. Just pull a trigger or push a button from a very safe and hidden position. Cowardly and gutless if you ask me, especially when the Military just does the whim of Politics and doesn't protect rare and endangered species upon the planet. Sea Shepard has more balls than the Australian Navy. Also, if you had women working at Alcatraz, chances are that the tunnel would have been spotted quickly. I think that the Australian Military can't cope with women in their midst because: 1. They have to work harder. 2. They have to work harder for all the right reasons. 3. They have to treat women properly and put away their little 'redneck/gay' tendencies.

Well anyone could tell you have never served a day in your life, the extent of your ignorance is astounding.

If the sole extent of your knowledge about strategic defence issues relies on you having seen a few WWII or Vietnam war movies then save yourself a lot of embrassment and keep your inane comments off the interweb.  ;D

Maybe in female-only units.  

They'd have to pass all the required tests as they are, not the 'dumbed-down' ones that they are usually required to do, and would need to be either sterilised or put on long-term contraceptives before being sent to the field.

Nancy Wake & the Russian are exceptions, as was Odette. But Nancy Wake & Odette were not front line, they were behind the lines as spies. And Russian women could double as Sherman tanks anyway.

No, I don't like the idea of women in general infantry etc. They have to be a danger to their colleagues.

Women are already serving on the 'front line' and have been for years. The debate now is about opening up the last remaining combat positions that still exclude women, jobs like navy Clearance Diver and infantry, plus a few others. If a woman is psychologically and physically suited for these jobs there is, on the face of it, no reason why they shouldn't do them. (although I think there would only be a minuscule number of women who could meet the physical standards required by a Clearance Diver)

However I do think that unit cohesion and espirit de corps can suffer somewhat in mixed gender units. Time will tell if this can be overcome or will remain a problem.

The problem is that currently women are not even eligible to apply for that 7% of roles - gender rejection is automatic, regardless of their skills or fitness.

It doesn't matter how unfit a bloke is, he is automatically eligible to apply on the basis of gender - and to be duly rejected in due course.

Equitist wrote on Apr 18^th, 2011 at 4:00pm:

The problem is that currently women are not even eligible to apply for that 7% of roles - gender rejection is automatic, regardless of their skills or fitness. It doesn't matter how unfit a bloke is, he is automatically eligible to apply on the basis of gender - and to be duly rejected in due course.

There are jobs that men don't even get a look-in either.  The difference is, we won't pretend that we want to do them just to make a point.

Equitist wrote on Apr 18^th, 2011 at 4:00pm:

The problem is that currently women are not even eligible to apply, regardless of their skills or fitness - rejection is automatic. It doesn't matter how unfit a bloke is, he is automatically eligible to apply - and to be duly rejected in due course.

An unfit male will be rejected for frontline combat duties in the same due course as a female, immediately, if you have titties you don't get to join.

The front line combat is not some ongoing social experiment in how to formulate an inclusive society, it is used to kill enemies of the state; one job and one job only.

Most Boarding Houses where I lived that had ex-military boys in it showed me how  mentally F'd up they are. Real simple simons who couldn't think for themselves if they knew they had the right to.

As for the Vietnam War: Isn't that the one where the North Vietnamese had women in their military and somehow kicked the USA butt! ;D

Maybe also, having women in the Military would prevent the Australian Military from getting into stoooopid wars in the first place. Maybe thats why wars erupt ...no women? ;D
Afterall, we all know the most successful Military in the world was Alexander's (The Great) "Poo Jabbers". I would be scared too if I saw an army approaching that wasn't interested in raping my women. ;D pillaging and plundering.

You only need to look at the current state of the Australian Military with treatment to its women to see that it has always been a bunch of 'little boys' ...little 'toy' soldiers who make a mockery of the word "Digger" as a defensive aspect by invading other nations as Mercenaries for the UK and USA (Political nations). ::)

It took a nerdy little 13 year old who looked like Harry Potter, to shoot 10 people dead with a pistol that even the best SAS couldn't achieve ...just from playing computer games.


THE BOLIVIAN ARMY is the most truest and purest form of Military that this planet currently has.  ;)
Put it this way, they ain't 'side-kicks' to the Political Industry like the USA Miltitary is. ;D

Sure, women can shoot straight put them on the front line as snipers but does anyone actually believe that a women can storm a house full of angry terrorists and take them on in hand to hand combat? No way. Do you believe that a women can risk their life and carry fully grown men on their shoulders and get out of fire before they get gunned down? No way. Front line soldiers could be women if there was only shooting involved but you need more then a good aim to win a war on the front line.

Let them fight, they are not under age and are capable for making their own decisions.

Bullcrap. Modern 'Westernised' Warfare is totally 'projectionated'. They hide in a safe place and kill others from as far from Danger as they possibly can.
Very rarely does Western Military place itself in a situation to contend with the enemy hand-to-hand.
Like Terminators - they let their Technology do the fighting for them ...oh, and some Amphetamines for the occassional "Friendly Fire".

Take into consideration that White men are more tuned to Hand-Held Weaponry unlike the Darker Races that used mostly Projectile Weaponry.
1. Bow & Arrow - Asia / Namerica / Samerica / Africa
2. Boomerang - Egypt / Australia
3. Spear - Africa / Asia
4. Woomera - Australia
5. Blow Dart - Samerica
6. Tomahawk - Namerica

1. Sword (and Sheild) - Europe (later Nippon)

So no wonder more White Men have died at the end of a Projectile Weapon via terrible Wars due to such mis-use.

What was once a Sword is now a Scalpel (and a Cooking utensil) ...not that most White boys realise this.

Why should any young person go to war? War should fall to the shoulders of those who created the mess, the over sixties and politicians. those who announce war should lead from the front like the good old days.