The standards should NOT be lowered, but they will be. They always are..... (BAAAAAD idea too.)

If women are going to be in combat, does it make sence that the Army physical fitness test demands much more of males than females?

For instance, a 50 year old man who does 24 push ups fails the test whereas a 17 year old female doing the same number of push ups passes? In running a 17 year old female with a time of 16:00 in the 2 mile run passes the test with a score of 95/100 whereas a male running the same time would fail the test.

Can females soldiers keep up if they are not expected to be as strong or run as fast as male soldiers? What if a male soldier is injured? Will a female be able to throw him over her shoulder and carry him to safety?

If it came to hand-to-hand, the female would be better off killing herself. The alternative could be much, much worse.

In a combat situation I think you would have a ruff go against someone my size with equal training. Have a little better training, you pay attention to the little things a bit better than the guy, you can beat him, or me.

If you had her skill level when we started, you too could have tossed me around like I was a feather. Your larger height would be advantageous in most cases, but just as the woman in my example did to me, I could turn that height against you with a simple crouch at the right moment to cause you to loose balance and then use that momentum to take you down.

What are the standards for getting place in the front lines? Are there tests that NO woman could ever pass?

I will bet you were pretty surprised! I don't know if someone of taller stature might have been more effective against you later. Did you ever spar with a taller woman? I'm 5'-9" tall, 128 lbs. I really don't know if I could carry 100+ lbs for any distance, although I've never tested that. I'm by no means weak. I just don't know how effective, or even intimidating I would be in a combat situation. I know I would fight like hell to protect those I love, but that is something entirely different. I honestly don't know how I feel about this. If a woman has shown herself capable throughout all of boot camp, and beyond, well maybe it should be at the discretion of her superior officers. I would like to think they would be objective about it...

I have been involved in a couple of martial arts styles over the years. Both were real combat styles where you do not have compositions because you train for combat, not to score points.

When I first started I was young, 6'2" and about 220 pounds in good shape. When we started to learn to toss others around I scoffed at the idea that some little 100 pound 5 foot nothing girl could toss me around. Sensei must have seen my reservation as he paired me up with a 4'10" 92 pound girl. She also must of sensed it because I flew 20 feet across the room into a wall with a mat on it the first time she attempted to throw me. (She was a more advanced student than I at the time) Two months later she could not move me, I had learned to use my weight and size to stop her from tossing me around.

My point is if the combat comes down to hand to hand, training and skill will take a person so far, but size, strength and weight all have advantages in hand to hand that cannot be countered against a person of equal or near equal skill.

The Israelis tried putting women on front lines. It didn't work. I served with women in the Air Force. In most military roles, they do well. I never met one, though, that could carry a 110 pounds of gear, although I suppose there are a few someplace. Ovomit and his hyenas are once again putting political correctness before common sense.

Women want all the benefits that men have so I think it's only proper that should they voulenteer for military service which protects the interests of U.S. oil interests, they should be willing to be maimed or blown to pieces.