Are we going to make them register for the Draft?

[vetteman]

Originally Posted by BUSYBODY-II

when this TURD wrote this

I called him a CLOWN bereft of sanity

Cause we ALL know

THAT HIS POINT WILL NEVER BE IMPLEMENTED


well,

we KNEW this would happen


Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dempsey: If Women Can’t Meet Standards For Combat Units Then Standards May Be Lowered…

This is what it's all about, the destruction of the finest army on Earth. Plain and simple...the long held liberal dream. Hopefully we still have generals who will refuse to serve under this President and resign on principle for the sake of the force and tell the American people the reasons why.

[vetteman]

Originally Posted by JAMESBJOHNSON

Vietnam didnt go Commie till after us guys came home.

On this subject you're talking to a mountain of ignorance.

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Originally Posted by vetteman

On this subject you're talking to a mountain of ignorance.

I know But I'm always hopeful that another reader will profit from the truth.

[about_average]

Originally Posted by sigh

As for including them in registering for the draft, I think we'd draft far more women than would meet the standards, so that would be a waste of time.

If I'm not mistaken, a basic physical is performed when drafted to weed out those obviously unsuitable.
There are plenty of jobs in the military that don't involve combat. Maybe we wouldn't need to use contractors like we do now.

[vetteman]

Originally Posted by vetteman

Do you believe an all female infantry regiment could take the field in ground combat and prevail against a Russian or Chinese regiment of equal size? No qualifiers, simple yes or no.

I ask Wrong Element again.

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Originally Posted by vetteman

Do you believe an all female infantry regiment could take the field in ground combat and prevail against a Russian or Chinese regiment of equal size? No qualifiers, simple yes or no.

I'll answer that.

Yes. There's no reason to believe that they would not stand as good a chance as an all male infantry regiment in ground combat against A Russian or Chinese regiment of equal size.

Why is it that you think that they would not? Do you think that women are inherently inferior to men when it comes to combat?

I ask because I've known more than a few military women that would stomp your raggedy ass into the dirt for even suggesting such a thing.

[1sickbastard]

Originally Posted by vetteman

Do you believe an all female infantry regiment could take the field in ground combat and prevail against a Russian or Chinese regiment of equal size? No qualifiers, simple yes or no.

I do.

American military personal are highly motivated (from being an all volunteer force) and have superior training and superior doctrine.

The only question I have is how many of the opposing force would be left to surrender.

[1sickbastard]

Direct quote from Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (i.e. America's top soldier): "If members of our military can meet the qualifications for a job -- and let me be clear, I'm not talking about reducing the qualifications for the job -- if they can meet the qualifications for the job, then they should have the right to serve, regardless of creed or color or gender or sexual orientation."

In other words, service based on individual merit, which is one of the bedrocks of Conservative philosophy.

[Ishmael]

Originally Posted by 1sickbastard

Direct quote from Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (i.e. America's top soldier): "If members of our military can meet the qualifications for a job -- and let me be clear, I'm not talking about reducing the qualifications for the job -- if they can meet the qualifications for the job, then they should have the right to serve, regardless of creed or color or gender or sexual orientation."

And what happens if the overwhelming majority of women can't cut the mustard?

Generals can make all the statements they want but they still answer to the political overseers and this IS a political issue. Over the years we've seen all to often where standards have been lowered in the interests of 'diversity.'

Ishmael

[Anquan Jihad]

Originally Posted by Ishmael

And what happens if the overwhelming majority of women can't cut the mustard?

Generals can make all the statements they want but they still answer to the political overseers and this IS a political issue. Over the years we've seen all to often where standards have been lowered in the interests of 'diversity.'

Ishmael

Ive already posted DIRECT quotes from Generals that the tests will be watered DOWN

[Anquan Jihad]

What will happen

When the 1st Female soldier is captured

put on TV, shown with a gun to her head and she is crying

and

her kids in the US are shown crying asking

WHERE IS MY MOMMY? WHEN IS SHE COMING HOME?

What will be the reaction?

[RobDownSouth]

I wonder how much hand-to-hand combat our two "war heroes" (Ishmael and the Gaylord Marine) saw in Vietnam?

The simple fact of the matter is that direct military conflicts between two armies are a lot like the Vettebigot's match.com conquests (nasty, brutish and very short).

Dubya's wars and subsequent nation building fiascos have put more women in direct combat situations than most men saw in Vietnam. There are no "fronts" anymore, no matter how many Sgt. Fury comics the fringe right reads.

Giving women the title to go along with the de facto responsibilities is a no-brainer.

[sigh]

Originally Posted by BUSYBODY-II

What will happen

When the 1st Female soldier is captured

put on TV, shown with a gun to her head and she is crying

and

her kids in the US are shown crying asking

WHERE IS MY MOMMY? WHEN IS SHE COMING HOME?

What will be the reaction?

umm...female soldiers have already been wounded and captured in combat and paraded on TV by their captors. At least one was a single mom.

Of course, that was outshone by the Pentagon parading the pretty blonde as a Rambo-type star who went down fighting and was gang-raped by the Iraqis (about as true as the Saddam statue thing), so maybe we didn't get the full effect you're hoping for.

Better luck next time.

[vetteman]

Originally Posted by BUSYBODY-II

Ive already posted DIRECT quotes from Generals that the tests will be watered DOWN

That sounds good to the desk warriors but it won't fly in the ranks. Non-hackers aren't going to be tolerated when lives are on the line.

[vetteman]

Originally Posted by 1sickbastard

I do.

American military personal are highly motivated (from being an all volunteer force) and have superior training and superior doctrine.

The only question I have is how many of the opposing force would be left to surrender.

You're an idiot. First off there aren't 800 equivalent females in the whole army to flesh out such a battalion that are the physical equal of an equivalent all male battalion under the present standards. The say they want to qualify women for special forces as well. Those who qualify for special ops are better than 95% of the rest of the men in the force. There aren't any women better than 95% of the existing all male force. So, that brings us to the ass eating reality of the situation. The standards are going to have to be lowered, period. Very un-necessarily I might add.

[vetteman]

Originally Posted by Ulaven_Demorte

I'll answer that.

Yes. There's no reason to believe that they would not stand as good a chance as an all male infantry regiment in ground combat against A Russian or Chinese regiment of equal size.

Why is it that you think that they would not? Do you think that women are inherently inferior to men when it comes to combat?

I ask because I've known more than a few military women that would stomp your raggedy ass into the dirt for even suggesting such a thing.

You've obviously never walked a mile in a grunts boots. I don't think they can hack it physically. I don't think they can hump the gear. I don't think they can endure in a high tempo infantry ground operation, period. The only two Marine females encouraged to volunteer by the Commandant for the Marine Infantry Officers school, were dropped after two days. The fact is they will never hack the standard Marine infantry training regimen. The standards will have to be lowered. Somebody else will be humping their gear and tussling with the enemy.

[BotanyBoy]

Originally Posted by Ulaven_Demorte

I'll answer that.

Yes. There's no reason to believe that they would not stand as good a chance as an all male infantry regiment in ground combat against A Russian or Chinese regiment of equal size.

Then it is quit obvious you have never been in battle, nor have you any clue what it is like or what happens when a bunch of people face off with the purpose of killing each other in close quarters.

Originally Posted by Ulaven_Demorte

Why is it that you think that they would not? Do you think that women are inherently inferior to men when it comes to combat?

Sheer brute strength....it's important. Not all engagements are 200m out and handled with .50 cal fire. Some of it is right up in your fuckin face, go into a house and you might find yourself on the ground in a knife fight with a 5-10 200lb guy trying to shank you.....it fucking happens. You honestly think Miss.110lbs and 19 push up's is going to handle it like the 6'2" 210lb Ranger that can put up 480lbs like a joke and bang out 100 push ups in 90 seconds? Cuz that guy will reach out and just crush someones skull in his bare hands.....no shit seen it happen.

Originally Posted by Ulaven_Demorte

I ask because I've known more than a few military women that would stomp your raggedy ass into the dirt for even suggesting such a thing.

Then she should have no problem with 77 push up's in 2 min, 68 sit ups and a 2 mi run in 12 min, 20 pull ups and a 12 mi ruck run with a 65lb ruck + full battle rattle in under 2 hrs simply to qualify for the school now should she??

Combat arms is not the place for a double physical standards in the name of fair.......hack the shit and do the job or GTFO, not the place for fail.

Like I said, no problem with girls...don't care what's between your legs...can you carry me and all my shit(nearly 400lbs) to extraction/CCP when I go down? Can you keep your 30lb rifle at the high ready scanning roof tops, watching my ass for the next 54 hrs?? If not no one wants you in a combat MOS.

[mercury14]

Originally Posted by 1sickbastard

I do.

American military personal are highly motivated (from being an all volunteer force) and have superior training and superior doctrine.

Yeah. Some of 'em.

[Anquan Jihad]

Originally Posted by sigh

umm...female soldiers have already been wounded and captured in combat and paraded on TV by their captors. At least one was a single mom.

Of course, that was outshone by the Pentagon parading the pretty blonde as a Rambo-type star who went down fighting and was gang-raped by the Iraqis (about as true as the Saddam statue thing), so maybe we didn't get the full effect you're hoping for.

Better luck next time.

WAPO did that


and NO, we didnt see them on TV

[4est_4est_Gump]

You are not treating them equally, you are just fucking with the men to make them quit and become metrosexuals so that you will be comfortable with the "look" of the military.



You want equality? March your daughters down to the Post Office and force them to Register for the draft or make them pay a fine/tax/penalty...




Furthermore, U_D is lying if he says he knows ONE badass woman army type.

Liberals feel free to make things up like being denied entrance into the Marines, dodging sniper fire and having a concussion.

[Anquan Jihad]

Women in Combat and Sexual Assault


By Heather Mac Donald

January 27, 2013 7:01 P.M.


I caught a snippet of the congressional hearing on sexual predation at Lackland Air Force Base last week on CSPAN. Possibly 32 military instructors at the Texas facility took advantage of several dozen female recruits. The most striking aspect of the hearing was the glimpse it provided into the military’s existing gender infrastructure — complete with “sexual-assault response coordinators,” etc. This massive bureaucratic apparatus will only grow in the wake of the decision to introduce females into combat roles.

Congressmen from both parties grilled the two testifying generals about the allegedly inadequate number of females throughout the chain of command, from instructors to recruiters, supervisors, and chiefs. Such “diversity” bean-counting pressure is likely the equal of anything on a college campus, but it will become even more intense in the future, since proportional female representation is both an end in itself and a perceived means to that end. (An NRO reader recently wrote of her disappointment on discovering how central “celebrating diversity” was to the West Point experience.)

One of the two generals lamented that the military is already awash in “volumes of education and training” on gender sensitivity, without noticeable effect. “We’ve added more every time we’ve had an incident, we add more and more, but the training is not resonating, we’re wasting people’s time,” said General Edward Rice.

Sexual predation is indefensible, and everything should be done to punish the perpetrators and deter further abuse. But there may be a limit to how much gender-sensitivity training can do to reengineer some brutish but basic human impulses in an institution still at least formally dedicated to a high-testosterone activity, one characterized by extreme and absolute differences of power. The goal of the military’s diversity infrastructure — to introduce women into every corner of a formerly predominantly male activity — had better be highly important to war preparedness to justify the cost. There may have been a wisdom in the millennia-long separation of the sexes in the combat portions of military organizations, beyond simply the physical unfitness of nearly all women for the rigors of actual, sustained combat.

(Some portion of what was referred to in the hearing as an “epidemic” of sexual assault on military bases is undoubtedly the result of two recruits’ voluntarily getting drunk and then voluntarily — to the extent that they retain their decision-making capacity — getting into bed together, rather than the case of a male superior’s exploiting a female underling. This drunken hook-up situation is of course the paradigm “sexual assault” scenario on college campuses.)

The hearing featured tearful victims of sexual assault on American military bases, still reeling from the experience years later. What will happen, one wonders, if our newly minted female fighters are captured in a country where rape is a tool of war (several in Africa currently come to mind). Will we take sexual-assault advisers on combat missions or let the women fend for themselves psychologically as well as physically? And what will be the opportunities to retrain the enemy?

[Anquan Jihad]

The MILITARY is for making women and Muslims feel at home

NOT for winning wars.....

[Ishmael]

I'll just reiterate my first post on the subject.

This is not about the needs of the nation, or improving our war fighting capability. This is a jobs program pure and simple.

The modern liberal sees no difference between women serving in combat units and being a civil service clerk or computer analyst. I think that the reason is is that so few of them have ever served at all, let alone in combat. For this very reason they have no basis for comparison. All they see is that women are being discriminated against and being denied advancement in a field of endeavor in which they, the liberal, believe that women can excel given the opportunity.

And I don't see how this can be achieved without a severe relaxation of the extreme standards of physical training that are applied to combat troops. And if those standards are relaxed in the interests of 'diversity', we will begin to see the results and they won't be pretty. The members of combat units instinctively, and remorselessly, begin to attack the weakest link in their units. This is a matter of inter-unit competitiveness and the deep instinctive understanding that in combat their survival is tied to that weakest link. The resulting 'gender norm'd' members of those outfits will be relentlessly attacked, not necessarily physically although that too will occur, until they put in their 'quit slips' or run to the chaplain (or their congressman). (And running to your congressman brings it's own stigma with it.) This behavior is as much instinctual as it is institutional, and is directly related to survival.

And perhaps, after the expenditure of billions of taxpayer dollars we can train those instinctual behaviors out of our front line fighting troops, I have to wonder what the cost in effectiveness will be?

Ishmael

[Sean]

Ishtard thinks women are second class. Shocker.

[mercury14]

Originally Posted by BUSYBODY-II

What will happen, one wonders, if our newly minted female fighters are captured in a country where rape is a tool of war (several in Africa currently come to mind). Will we take sexual-assault advisers on combat missions or let the women fend for themselves psychologically as well as physically? And what will be the opportunities to retrain the enemy?

What if our male service members are captured in a country where testicular mutilation is a tool of war (Vietnam comes to mind)?