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.

Quote:


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.

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.

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.

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



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. 

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.

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:



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.