Army Introduces New Unisex Combat Uniforms

[Busybody]

Army Introduces New Unisex Combat Uniforms


The campaign in Afghanistan isn’t going so well, which isn’t surprising, considering the civilian leadership has provided no coherent objectives and the rules of engagement reduce US troops to Taliban target practice. But the much more important campaign to socially reengineer the Armed Forces is proceeding at a blitzkrieg pace:


A new combat uniform with special consideration to the female body is now available at Fort Gordon, almost a month after the Army announced plans to open all units and military jobs to women by 2016. …

Unlike the decades-old Army combat uniform, which comes in 36 sizes and was designed principally by men for men, the alternate clothing line was created to fit a broader range of body types, officials say.

The trousers feature wider areas at the hips, waist and backside; elastic around the waistband instead of pull string; adjusted pockets and knee-pad inserts; and a shortened rise in pants.

The next version, taking into account the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, may feature a buttoned flap in the back for easy anal access during romantic assignations in the field.

The new unisex model:

 

[Busybody]

Sorry, that’s not it. The new unisex model:

 

[Busybody]

soon

this

 

[Busybody]

 

[Busybody]

 

[landslider2000]

Surely any potential enemy, in any future long/big war, will conform to our Political Correctness?

 

[Busybody]

Surely

 

[Busybody]

 

[BotanyBoy]

Wrong ACU's (horrible horrible uniforms) are almost gone and getting gonner every day.

Gangsters got new uniforms....

IDK why the need....BDU's were perfect man, gett them bitch's all pressed like cardboard, get the jungles all shined up....yes sir...lookin' sharp.

Now they got all this wash n' wear, no shine boot shit...looking like bags of hammered dog shit...

 

[renard_ruse]

I could not in good conscience be in a war in which I would have to kill women or children.

That men should not physically hurt or kill women is never brought into the discussion. Buchanan is the only one besides me who seems to have raised this issue and hardly anyone reads his column anymore.

 

[renard_ruse]

The Pentagon’s Surrender to Feminism

By Patrick J. Buchanan

“The Pentagon unveiled plans Tuesday for fully integrating women into front-line and special combat roles, including elite forces such as Army Rangers and Navy SEALs.”

So ran the lead on the CNN story. And why are we doing this?

Did the young officers leading troops in battle in Afghanistan and Iraq, returning with casualties, say they needed women to enhance the fighting efficiency of their combat units and the survival rate of their soldiers?

Did men from the 101st and 82nd airborne, the Marines, the SEALs and Delta Force petition the Joint Chiefs to put women alongside them in future engagements to make them an even superior force?

No. This decision to put women in combat represents a capitulation of the military brass, a surrender to the spirit of our age, the Pentagon’s salute to feminist ideology.

This is not a decision at which soldiers arrived when they studied after-action reports, but the product of an ideology that contradicts human nature, human experience and human history, and declares as dogma that women are just as good at soldiering as men.

But if this were true, rather than merely asserted, would it have taken mankind the thousands of years from Thermopylae to discover it?

In the history of civilization, men have fought the wars. In civilized societies, attacks on women have always been regarded as contemptible and cowardly. Even the Third Reich in its dying hours did not send women into battle, but old men and boys.

“You don’t hit a girl!” was something every American boy had drilled into him from childhood. It was part of our culture, the way we were raised. A Marine friend told me he would have resigned from the Corps rather than fight women with the pugil sticks used for bayonet practice at Parris Island.

Sending women into combat on equal terms seems also to violate common sense. When they reach maturity, men are bigger, stronger, more aggressive. Thus they commit many times the number of violent crimes and outnumber women in prisons 10 to 1.

For every Bonnie Parker, there are 10 Clyde Barrows.

Is it a coincidence that every massacre discussed in our gun debate — from the Texas Tower to the Long Island Railroad, from Columbine to Ft. Hood, from Virginia Tech to Tucson, from Aurora to Newtown — was the work of a crazed male?

Nothing matches mortal combat where soldiers fight and kill, and are wounded, maimed and die for cause or country. Domestically, the closest approximations are combat training, ultimate fighting, boxing and that most physical of team sports, the NFL.

Yet no women compete against men in individual or team sports. They are absent from boys’ and men’s teams in high school and college, be it football, basketball, baseball, hockey or lacrosse.

Even in the non-contact sports of golf, tennis and volleyball, men compete with men, women against women.

In the Olympics, to which nations send their best athletes, women and men compete separately in track and field, swimming and gymnastics.


Consider our own history. Would any U.S. admiral say that in any of America’s great naval battles — Mobile Bay, Manila Bay, Midway, the Coral Sea — we would done better with some women manning the guns?

In the revolutionary and civil wars, World Wars I and II, Korea and Vietnam, women were not in combat. Was it invidious discrimination of which we should all be ashamed that women were not fighting alongside the men at Gettysburg, in the Argonne, at Normandy or with “Chesty” Puller’s Marines in the retreat from the Chosin Reservoir?

Undeniably, some women might handle combat as well as some men. But that is true of some 13-, 14- and 15-year-old boys, and some 50- and 60-year old men. Yet we do not draft boys or men that age or send them into combat. Is this invidious discrimination based on age, or ageism?

Carry this feminist-egalitarian ideology to its logical conclusion, and half of those storming the Omaha and Utah beaches should have been girls and women. Is this not an absurdity?

We have had Navy ships become “love boats,” with female sailors returning pregnant. At the Naval Academy, three midshipmen, football players, allegedly raped an intoxicated classmate. For months, she was too ashamed and frightened to report it.

An estimated 26,000 personnel of the armed forces were sexually assaulted in 2011, up from 19,000 in 2010. Obama and the Congress are understandably outraged. Such assaults are appalling. But is not the practice of forcing young men and women together in close quarters a contributory factor here?

Among the primary reasons the Equal Rights Amendment, the ERA, went down to defeat three decades ago was the realization it could mean, in a future war, women could be drafted equally with men, and sent in equal numbers into combat.

I sometimes wonder if Pat and I were separated at birth? We come up with the same arguments independently (unless he sneaks on here to read my posts... )

 

[BotanyBoy]

That men should not physically hurt or kill women is never brought into the discussion. Buchanan is the only one besides me who seems to have raised this issue and hardly anyone reads his column anymore.

Because it's fucking retarded....you REALLY think a woman or child can't pull a trigger on you the same as a man?

You're fucking high....warfare, sometimes you gotta kill some bitches..

 

[phrodeau]

No respect for the C-in-C, no respect for the Pentagon, and now no respect for the uniform.

You can leave any time you like.

 

[renard_ruse]

Because it's fucking retarded....you REALLY think a woman or child can't pull a trigger on you the same as a man?

You're fucking high....warfare, sometimes you gotta kill some bitches..

Its called morality and a gentleman's code of honor. Without that, there is nothing.

 

[renard_ruse]

Men and women are not to kill each other in wars. Humanity has been possesed by the Devil. The world is SICK.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Its called morality and a gentleman's code of honor. Without that, there is nothing.

LOL you really do live in a fantasy land don't you?

The gentleman's code of honor is you don't target non combatants....that's the code. Gender and age don't have shit to do with it bubba.

 

[Busybody]

LOL you really do live in a fantasy land don't you?

The gentleman's code of honor is you don't target non combatants....that's the code. Gender and age don't have shit to do with it bubba.

he is a REE TARD

Muslim women put bombs in their cunts and on their babies

 

[Busybody]

hey yo, Renard





Muslim Brotherhood Supporters Dress Children In “Death Shrouds,” Chanting They Are Willing To Become Martyrs For Morsi…




How delightful.

Via Egyptian Street:


Shocking footage has emerged of Egyptian children being dressed in white ‘death shrouds’ in preparation for their ‘martyrdom’ by pro-Morsi families in a large demonstration at Rabaa al-Adaweya.

The children were heard chanting pre-rehearsed lines and were seen carrying posters that say “I am ready to die!” during a short march.

This is not the first time that such images have emerged, however media and government attention over the issue remains spotty, as debates over politics have quickly overshadowed social problems plaguing Egypt.

Under both international and local law, using children under 18 years as a tool for politics and placing these children at severe risk of death or injury is illegal.

With an impending dispersion by the government of the pro-Morsi demonstration at Rabaa al-Adaweya, it is evident that the lives of hundreds, if not thousands, of children will be put at severe risk.

Keep reading…

 

[BotanyBoy]

he is a REE TARD

Muslim women put bombs in their cunts and on their babies

 

[Busybody]

Everything

I say

is true

UNCOMFY

but true

Right?

Bootay BOI?

 

[Busybody]

instead of UniSex shit

figure out a way of killing hundreds of MILLIONS of MUSLIMS

and

DUMZ and LIBZ!

 

[BotanyBoy]

Everything

I say

is true

UNCOMFY

but true

Right?

Bootay BOI?

Not everything, but sometimes, that was one of those times.

 

[Busybody]

Not everything, but sometimes, that was one of those times.

grrrrr

 

[mdbigdee]

You can gurgle your moral code as you lie dying from the 7.62mm round she shot you in the lung with....die proud,stupid!!!

 

[ivantheterrible]

women have been involved in modern warfare for some time now.
female french partisans during ww2, and russian women fighting in WW2
VC in vietnam had lots of female shooters
the chinese military has many women in the fighting units
etc.
getting women involved in actual boots on the ground fighting (not talking about flying jets or on ships) is a sign of desperation.
for america it is a sign that the nation is short of fighters . people are slowly waking up to modern societies "rich mans war".