Not at all.

Meaning what? Do you support it not at all? Oppose it not at all? Or care about it not at all? If you're a '60s era vet, I imagine you come from a background that would make your view quite interesting, whatever it is.

Natalie I am sure you have never served in combat -- it is a little different then reality TV. For one thing go to the public gym and find a fit woman and a fit man and ask them to do the same weights... Those packs with full warfare gear are extremely heavy -- most women have less than 1/2 the upper and lower body strength of men. The next issue is psychological -- there have been countless studies showing that 3rd shirt work has a more adverse impact on a woman's body than a mans. The other is the psychological impact on male squad members when I woman is injured in combat or taken POW. Keep in mind war is not about fairness or ethical behavior -- it is about survival and victory and minimizing loses. I do support equality where it makes sense butt here are certain areas where equality is putting people in harm's way to support an ideology that just doesn't make practical sense. This is certainly one of those areas -- anyone can make a movies or a pitch to put a spin on something but those of us that have been there or have seen unbiased data know that this is a horrible proposition.

Airman's comments were dead on -- This clown was not right at all. Putting people in harm's way to support an agenda. So now all women should have to sign up for the draft, right??? After all if we are all being treated equal now I am expecting every woman to be able to serve in time of warfare in direct combat roles - no exceptions. Are you ready to strap on a M16, dig a fox hole, carry a 100 pound sack of gear for 15-25 miles a day and feel you are able to adequately defend yourself in hand to hand combat against the enemy (which is 99% of the time going to be a trained male with considerable more physical strength) or that in 8-10 weeks Uncle Sam will whip you in shape to do this? People just can't leave the lines stay in the sand and move on to more important causes. There are a ton of them and yet there is too much effort spent on things that should just be left alone.

"This is great news for those advocating equality in the nation's armed forces, but not so much for those who believe in traditional gender roles." Equality and gender roles have nothing to do with it! Men and women are different when it comes to strength and endurance - period. I agree with Airman and Reality Checker - women do not belong in combat.

RC, where are Airman's comments to which you refer?

Thanks to you and all for sharing your opinion.

He just said -- not at all -- as not in agreement with the proposal on putting women in combat. How quickly we forget when women are taken captive in foreign conflicts what typically happens to them especially in countries that despise Americans and where rape and murder and considered accepted practices in those societies. Also foreign countries exploit the emotions of those back in the US when this happens. But I am not necessarily for traditional roles I just realize that women and men are built differently and to ignore this is a huge mistake. Too many people watch GI Jane and think this is great women should be able to cut it in direct combat roles -- and while doing 20 pull ups of a 130 pound body weight sounds great -- try carrying a 200 pound wounded soldier for a 1/2 mile or more to cover. But this is all about the perception of the public -- once we are in a major conflict where our sisters, cousins, mothers and daugters are coming home in body bags in larger numbers or have a significant number of female POWs in a major conflict that have terrible things done to them -- the public opinion might change a bit.... After all perception from just watching TV is not the perception of being on the ground in harms way.