# We Knew this was coming.



## SFC Ollie

U.S. Army trainers will soon lead an effort to create gender-neutral physical standards for all soldiers as part of a plan to allow women to serve in infantry, Special Forces and other combat arms jobs.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/...sical-standards.html?ESRC=army-a.nl#community


Translation: We will now lower the standards for everyone so that women can qualify the same as the men, who won't have to work as hard as they used to.

Ladies and gentlemen, for the first time I can honestly say that's not my military and I'm glad I'm out........

This is just one more step in the downward spiral of this once great country....

It's sad.


----------



## AmyNation

Link is broken.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Army Submits Plan to Open Combat Jobs for Women | Military.com


----------



## whitehall

The Klintons tried it with the Marines during the 90's and the USMC was still powerful enough to resist training men with women. Clinton nut cases called the Marines foul names. I think the Army was forced to train men and women in the same recruit units but after the Arkansas sleaze bags left office the Army came back to their senses.


----------



## AmyNation

From your link

"But this does not mean the Army has decided to open these jobs to women yet.

&#8220;The Army will review these MOSs and make a recommendation to the secretary of Defense if they should remain closed,&#8221; Platt said. &#8220;If we find that the assignment of women to specific positions or occupational specialties is in conflict with the department&#8217;s guiding principles, exceptions to policy will be requested, which will prohibit their assignment to certain jobs.&#8221;


----------



## SFC Ollie

They were training together before Clinton. But the men had one set of Physical Standards and could laugh at what the women had as their standards.


----------



## SFC Ollie

AmyNation said:


> From your link
> 
> "But this does not mean the Army has decided to open these jobs to women yet.
> 
> The Army will review these MOSs and make a recommendation to the secretary of Defense if they should remain closed, Platt said. If we find that the assignment of women to specific positions or occupational specialties is in conflict with the departments guiding principles, exceptions to policy will be requested, which will prohibit their assignment to certain jobs.



Yes but they will still look at lowering the physical standards for men, so that more women will be able to meet them. Which means that some men who couldn't handle the physical parts of these jobs will now make the qualification. End result is weakening the force.


----------



## AmyNation

They haven't done anything yet.

IMO, physical tests should be based on the MOS and let the chips fall where they may.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Exactly. But this is heading towards weakening that.


----------



## AmyNation

Btw, the military is a fluid thing, it is always changing. The physical training my husband received is not the same as what you received and isn't even the same that my nephews received. 

Sometimes change isnt a bad thing, its just different.


----------



## SFC Ollie

I mean, I knew that I could pass the Mens Physical Fitness test....I never maxed it, But I never failed it either. But I also knew that I would fail the Ranger course.


----------



## SFC Ollie

AmyNation said:


> Btw, the military is a fluid thing, it is always changing. The physical training my husband received is not the same as what you received and isn't even the same that my nephews received.
> 
> Sometimes change isnt a bad thing, its just different.



Well now, that depends on when your Husband and nephews served.....

I saw one major change while I was on active duty....Remember I was in for 22 years....


----------



## Moonglow

SFC Ollie said:


> U.S. Army trainers will soon lead an effort to create gender-neutral physical standards for all soldiers as part of a plan to allow women to serve in infantry, Special Forces and other combat arms jobs.
> Army Submits Plan to Open Combat Jobs for Women | Military.com
> 
> 
> Translation: We will now lower the standards for everyone so that women can qualify the same as the men, who won't have to work as hard as they used to.
> 
> Ladies and gentlemen, for the first time I can honestly say that's not my military and I'm glad I'm out........
> 
> This is just one more step in the downward spiral of this once great country....
> 
> It's sad.



yes, you daydream of the days when you could torture, demean, and work some soldiers until they dropped from exhaustion.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Moonglow said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Army trainers will soon lead an effort to create gender-neutral physical standards for all soldiers as part of a plan to allow women to serve in infantry, Special Forces and other combat arms jobs.
> Army Submits Plan to Open Combat Jobs for Women | Military.com
> 
> 
> Translation: We will now lower the standards for everyone so that women can qualify the same as the men, who won't have to work as hard as they used to.
> 
> Ladies and gentlemen, for the first time I can honestly say that's not my military and I'm glad I'm out........
> 
> This is just one more step in the downward spiral of this once great country....
> 
> It's sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes, you daydream of the days when you could torture, demean, and work some soldiers until they dropped from exhaustion.
Click to expand...


Get a life.


----------



## syrenn

SFC Ollie said:


> U.S. Army trainers will soon lead an effort to create gender-neutral physical standards for all soldiers as part of a plan to allow women to serve in infantry, Special Forces and other combat arms jobs.
> Army Submits Plan to Open Combat Jobs for Women | Military.com
> 
> 
> Translation: We will now lower the standards for everyone so that women can qualify the same as the men, who won't have to work as hard as they used to.
> 
> Ladies and gentlemen, for the first time I can honestly say that's not my military and I'm glad I'm out........
> 
> This is just one more step in the downward spiral of this once great country....
> 
> It's sad.




it is always wrong to lower any standard to allow those who cant pass for what ever reason, to pass. 

the ideal is (or should be)  to raise the bar not lower it. 

in my opinion if the women want to do what the men are doing, then there should be no issue for them to do just that... pass the SAME tests, come up to the same standards as the men.


----------



## AmyNation

SFC Ollie said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Btw, the military is a fluid thing, it is always changing. The physical training my husband received is not the same as what you received and isn't even the same that my nephews received.
> 
> Sometimes change isnt a bad thing, its just different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well now, that depends on when your Husband and nephews served.....
> 
> I saw one major change while I was on active duty....Remember I was in for 22 years....
Click to expand...


When my husband was in basic, most physical training was done in newly made special sand lots and most training had a focus on desert combat, and they were looking to totally revamp basic training so it was more practical to everyday needs. So, less running and obstacle courses, more carrying fallen soldiers and such.


----------



## gallantwarrior

SFC Ollie said:


> U.S. Army trainers will soon lead an effort to create gender-neutral physical standards for all soldiers as part of a plan to allow women to serve in infantry, Special Forces and other combat arms jobs.
> Army Submits Plan to Open Combat Jobs for Women | Military.com
> 
> 
> Translation: We will now lower the standards for everyone so that women can qualify the same as the men, who won't have to work as hard as they used to.
> 
> Ladies and gentlemen, for the first time I can honestly say that's not my military and I'm glad I'm out........
> 
> This is just one more step in the downward spiral of this once great country....
> 
> It's sad.



The first time, Ollie?  I've been embarrassed often in the past 18 years I've been retired.  It certainly is not the Army I left behind and I doubt I would last a NY minute as a 1SG now.  Hell, I was considered 'mean' and 'hard' when I was a 1SG!  But it isn't any different than the rest of this declining Nation, lowering standards to accommodate all those of lesser ability instead of maintaining or even increasing standards in order to maintain the best as an elite force.  Maybe it's a good thing we're converting to use of drones.
Sad indeed.


----------



## gallantwarrior

AmyNation said:


> They haven't done anything yet.
> 
> IMO, physical tests should be based on the MOS and let the chips fall where they may.



That might be one way of dealing with the more stringent physical requirements of some jobs.  Don't look for a common sense solution, though.
And all this in the face of increased sexual assaults?


----------



## gallantwarrior

Moonglow said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Army trainers will soon lead an effort to create gender-neutral physical standards for all soldiers as part of a plan to allow women to serve in infantry, Special Forces and other combat arms jobs.
> Army Submits Plan to Open Combat Jobs for Women | Military.com
> 
> 
> Translation: We will now lower the standards for everyone so that women can qualify the same as the men, who won't have to work as hard as they used to.
> 
> Ladies and gentlemen, for the first time I can honestly say that's not my military and I'm glad I'm out........
> 
> This is just one more step in the downward spiral of this once great country....
> 
> It's sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes, you daydream of the days when you could torture, demean, and work some soldiers until they dropped from exhaustion.
Click to expand...


Certainly.  At least you knew who the men were and who the nancies were you could count on to get your ass shot.


----------



## gallantwarrior

syrenn said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Army trainers will soon lead an effort to create gender-neutral physical standards for all soldiers as part of a plan to allow women to serve in infantry, Special Forces and other combat arms jobs.
> Army Submits Plan to Open Combat Jobs for Women | Military.com
> 
> 
> Translation: We will now lower the standards for everyone so that women can qualify the same as the men, who won't have to work as hard as they used to.
> 
> Ladies and gentlemen, for the first time I can honestly say that's not my military and I'm glad I'm out........
> 
> This is just one more step in the downward spiral of this once great country....
> 
> It's sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it is always wrong to lower any standard to allow those who cant pass for what ever reason, to pass.
> 
> the ideal is (or should be)  to raise the bar not lower it.
> 
> in my opinion if the women want to do what the men are doing, then there should be no issue for them to do just that... pass the SAME tests, come up to the same standards as the men.
Click to expand...


I have seen it done.


----------



## SFC Ollie

When I started the Physical Test was 5 events, and women were not in the regular Army, they were still WACS (Womens Army Corps)

Run Dodge and Jump
Inverted crawl
Horizontal ladder
Pushups
1 Mile run.

You had no more than 2 or 3 minutes in between events less if there was a small number being tested.

When I retired the test was 3 events and women had a lower standard than men.

2 minutes of sit ups
2 minutes of push ups
2 mile run.......

I have heard they are looking at sprints more than distance running, and that actually makes some sense.


----------



## gallantwarrior

SFC Ollie said:


> When I started the Physical Test was 5 events, and women were not in the regular Army, they were still WACS (Womens Army Corps)
> 
> Run Dodge and Jump
> Inverted crawl
> Horizontal ladder
> Pushups
> 1 Mile run.
> 
> You had no more than 2 or 3 minutes in between events less if there was a small number being tested.
> 
> When I retired the test was 3 events and women had a lower standard than men.
> 
> 2 minutes of sit ups
> 2 minutes of push ups
> 2 mile run.......
> 
> I have heard they are looking at sprints more than distance running, and that actually makes some sense.



Same story here, except we had something called a 'shuttle run' instead of the inverted crawl.


----------



## whitehall

Here we go. The Klinton's pushed the first female carrier pilot trainee way past her capabilities and she finally killed herself in the "worst attempt at a carrier landing in history" but the Klintons managed to gag the Navy and portray Navy pilot Kara Hultgren's death as an equipment malfunction.


----------



## earlycuyler

SFC Ollie said:


> U.S. Army trainers will soon lead an effort to create gender-neutral physical standards for all soldiers as part of a plan to allow women to serve in infantry, Special Forces and other combat arms jobs.
> Army Submits Plan to Open Combat Jobs for Women | Military.com
> 
> 
> Translation: We will now lower the standards for everyone so that women can qualify the same as the men, who won't have to work as hard as they used to.
> 
> Ladies and gentlemen, for the first time I can honestly say that's not my military and I'm glad I'm out........
> 
> This is just one more step in the downward spiral of this once great country....
> 
> It's sad.



It is just stupid. Next will be gender neutral uniforms.


----------



## SFC Ollie

earlycuyler said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Army trainers will soon lead an effort to create gender-neutral physical standards for all soldiers as part of a plan to allow women to serve in infantry, Special Forces and other combat arms jobs.
> Army Submits Plan to Open Combat Jobs for Women | Military.com
> 
> 
> Translation: We will now lower the standards for everyone so that women can qualify the same as the men, who won't have to work as hard as they used to.
> 
> Ladies and gentlemen, for the first time I can honestly say that's not my military and I'm glad I'm out........
> 
> This is just one more step in the downward spiral of this once great country....
> 
> It's sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is just stupid. Next will be gender neutral uniforms.
Click to expand...


Actually they just approved a female specific Body Armor. Go figure........


----------



## syrenn

gallantwarrior said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Army trainers will soon lead an effort to create gender-neutral physical standards for all soldiers as part of a plan to allow women to serve in infantry, Special Forces and other combat arms jobs.
> Army Submits Plan to Open Combat Jobs for Women | Military.com
> 
> 
> Translation: We will now lower the standards for everyone so that women can qualify the same as the men, who won't have to work as hard as they used to.
> 
> Ladies and gentlemen, for the first time I can honestly say that's not my military and I'm glad I'm out........
> 
> This is just one more step in the downward spiral of this once great country....
> 
> It's sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it is always wrong to lower any standard to allow those who cant pass for what ever reason, to pass.
> 
> the ideal is (or should be)  to raise the bar not lower it.
> 
> in my opinion if the women want to do what the men are doing, then there should be no issue for them to do just that... pass the SAME tests, come up to the same standards as the men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have seen it done.
Click to expand...



so have i. 

And its wrong on every level. Well, except for the ones wanting something they do not deserve.


----------



## AmyNation

SFC Ollie said:


> When I started the Physical Test was 5 events, and women were not in the regular Army, they were still WACS (Womens Army Corps)
> 
> Run Dodge and Jump
> Inverted crawl
> Horizontal ladder
> Pushups
> 1 Mile run.
> 
> You had no more than 2 or 3 minutes in between events less if there was a small number being tested.
> 
> When I retired the test was 3 events and women had a lower standard than men.
> 
> 2 minutes of sit ups
> 2 minutes of push ups
> 2 mile run.......
> 
> I have heard they are looking at sprints more than distance running, and that actually makes some sense.



In basic, it makes sense for men and women to have different physical standards. What is healthily and fit for a man is different than what is fit and healthily for a woman.


----------



## Big Black Dog

I agree, SFC Ollie.  It's a very sad thing.  I truly believe that women have a place in the military BUT I strongly disagree about putting them in combat situations.  Sorry.  I'm "old school".


----------



## SFC Ollie

I'll never forget the first time I saw a woman marching in Class A's with the men. I actually thought some guy had forgotten his pants.....(In my defense I had just left an all male unit and hadn't seen women in the regular Army up until then, and the formation was close to 100 yards away from me.....)


----------



## earlycuyler

SFC Ollie said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Army trainers will soon lead an effort to create gender-neutral physical standards for all soldiers as part of a plan to allow women to serve in infantry, Special Forces and other combat arms jobs.
> Army Submits Plan to Open Combat Jobs for Women | Military.com
> 
> 
> Translation: We will now lower the standards for everyone so that women can qualify the same as the men, who won't have to work as hard as they used to.
> 
> Ladies and gentlemen, for the first time I can honestly say that's not my military and I'm glad I'm out........
> 
> This is just one more step in the downward spiral of this once great country....
> 
> It's sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is just stupid. Next will be gender neutral uniforms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually they just approved a female specific Body Armor. Go figure........
Click to expand...


That stuff I can understand, but the whole idea was EQUALITY. If women are going to go to combat, they need to be able to haul the combat load. The WHOLE load. I dont know, I just dont see this lasting to long.


----------



## Oldguy

SFC Ollie said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Army trainers will soon lead an effort to create gender-neutral physical standards for all soldiers as part of a plan to allow women to serve in infantry, Special Forces and other combat arms jobs.
> Army Submits Plan to Open Combat Jobs for Women | Military.com
> 
> 
> Translation: We will now lower the standards for everyone so that women can qualify the same as the men, who won't have to work as hard as they used to.
> 
> Ladies and gentlemen, for the first time I can honestly say that's not my military and I'm glad I'm out........
> 
> This is just one more step in the downward spiral of this once great country....
> 
> It's sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is just stupid. Next will be gender neutral uniforms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually they just approved a female specific Body Armor. Go figure........
Click to expand...



That's not hard to "figure" out.  Women have tits.  Men don't....or, shouldn't at least.


----------



## Oldguy

The Army periodically changes just about everything, including the PT test (APFT to younger folks.  See?  They've even changed the name of it!).  Just because they are looking at changing it does not necessarily mean they're going to reduce the standards.

My advice?  Don't get your shorts in a knot until you see the new standards.


----------



## earlycuyler

AmyNation said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I started the Physical Test was 5 events, and women were not in the regular Army, they were still WACS (Womens Army Corps)
> 
> Run Dodge and Jump
> Inverted crawl
> Horizontal ladder
> Pushups
> 1 Mile run.
> 
> You had no more than 2 or 3 minutes in between events less if there was a small number being tested.
> 
> When I retired the test was 3 events and women had a lower standard than men.
> 
> 2 minutes of sit ups
> 2 minutes of push ups
> 2 mile run.......
> 
> I have heard they are looking at sprints more than distance running, and that actually makes some sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In basic, it makes sense for men and women to have different physical standards. What is healthily and fit for a man is different than what is fit and healthily for a woman.
Click to expand...


Its not so much healthy and fit. When I was in the Navy I was not helthy or fit, but I passed my PRT's with a hangover and as a 2 pack a day smoker. Yes, women did much better on those then me in most cases, and if needed, im pretty sure they would have been able to haul my carcase up or down stairs or what ever. Soldiers need to carry gear,, weapons and ammo. If they cant carry their share then they are not a team member, but a liability.


----------



## earlycuyler

Oldguy said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is just stupid. Next will be gender neutral uniforms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually they just approved a female specific Body Armor. Go figure........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's not hard to "figure" out.  Women have tits.  Men don't....or, shouldn't at least.
Click to expand...


Yeah, so next will be uniforms that make the boobs a vague suggestion.


----------



## gallantwarrior

AmyNation said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I started the Physical Test was 5 events, and women were not in the regular Army, they were still WACS (Womens Army Corps)
> 
> Run Dodge and Jump
> Inverted crawl
> Horizontal ladder
> Pushups
> 1 Mile run.
> 
> You had no more than 2 or 3 minutes in between events less if there was a small number being tested.
> 
> When I retired the test was 3 events and women had a lower standard than men.
> 
> 2 minutes of sit ups
> 2 minutes of push ups
> 2 mile run.......
> 
> I have heard they are looking at sprints more than distance running, and that actually makes some sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In basic, it makes sense for men and women to have different physical standards. What is healthily and fit for a man is different than what is fit and healthily for a woman.
Click to expand...


Sure.  But is it healthy for a 98 lb woman to carry the same 80 lbs of equipment that a 110 lb man?  Do you honestly think a situation like that won't impact combat efficiency?  And if she isn't carrying the same basic issue, how is that 'fair'?


----------



## gallantwarrior

earlycuyler said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is just stupid. Next will be gender neutral uniforms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually they just approved a female specific Body Armor. Go figure........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That stuff I can understand, but the whole idea was EQUALITY. If women are going to go to combat, they need to be able to haul the combat load. The WHOLE load. I dont know, I just dont see this lasting to long.
Click to expand...


I have no problem with women in combat roles, as long as they can meet the same standards the men do.  We should not lower standards in order to accommodate some social engineer's idea of "equality" or "fairness".  Combat units, more than any other military unit, have a very dangerous job to do and any weak link is a liability, a deadly liability.  There are many different career paths available to women in the military where their strengths are an asset.  Let's all grow up and be realistic, men and women are not physically equal in most cases.  Let's stop pretending they are and start exploiting their differences.


----------



## editec

Maintain the same high standards and allow women to try to make it.

Men fail all the time, why not let women fail too?


----------



## gallantwarrior

editec said:


> Maintain the same high standards and allow women to try to make it.
> 
> Men fail all the time, why not let women fail too?



Exactly.


----------



## High_Gravity

SFC Ollie said:


> U.S. Army trainers will soon lead an effort to create gender-neutral physical standards for all soldiers as part of a plan to allow women to serve in infantry, Special Forces and other combat arms jobs.
> Army Submits Plan to Open Combat Jobs for Women | Military.com
> 
> 
> Translation: We will now lower the standards for everyone so that women can qualify the same as the men, who won't have to work as hard as they used to.
> 
> Ladies and gentlemen, for the first time I can honestly say that's not my military and I'm glad I'm out........
> 
> This is just one more step in the downward spiral of this once great country....
> 
> It's sad.



In about 20 years Sarge the men and women in the service will be showering and bunking together, I think we discussed this a while back.


----------



## High_Gravity

SFC Ollie said:


> I mean, I knew that I could pass the Mens Physical Fitness test....I never maxed it, But I never failed it either. But I also knew that I would fail the Ranger course.



In a few years me and you could both walk past the Ranger course Sarge.


----------



## AmyNation

gallantwarrior said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I started the Physical Test was 5 events, and women were not in the regular Army, they were still WACS (Womens Army Corps)
> 
> Run Dodge and Jump
> Inverted crawl
> Horizontal ladder
> Pushups
> 1 Mile run.
> 
> You had no more than 2 or 3 minutes in between events less if there was a small number being tested.
> 
> When I retired the test was 3 events and women had a lower standard than men.
> 
> 2 minutes of sit ups
> 2 minutes of push ups
> 2 mile run.......
> 
> I have heard they are looking at sprints more than distance running, and that actually makes some sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In basic, it makes sense for men and women to have different physical standards. What is healthily and fit for a man is different than what is fit and healthily for a woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.  But is it healthy for a 98 lb woman to carry the same 80 lbs of equipment that a 110 lb man?  Do you honestly think a situation like that won't impact combat efficiency?  And if she isn't carrying the same basic issue, how is that 'fair'?
Click to expand...


The army is reviewing the combat positions and will make their recommendations on what should be open to women and what shouldn't, and I've already stated, I think the tests should be based on what youll need in the MOS and nothing else.

Will there be women who don't qualify? Sure. But I'm 100% confident that there will be women who can and will qualify.


----------



## High_Gravity

syrenn said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Army trainers will soon lead an effort to create gender-neutral physical standards for all soldiers as part of a plan to allow women to serve in infantry, Special Forces and other combat arms jobs.
> Army Submits Plan to Open Combat Jobs for Women | Military.com
> 
> 
> Translation: We will now lower the standards for everyone so that women can qualify the same as the men, who won't have to work as hard as they used to.
> 
> Ladies and gentlemen, for the first time I can honestly say that's not my military and I'm glad I'm out........
> 
> This is just one more step in the downward spiral of this once great country....
> 
> It's sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it is always wrong to lower any standard to allow those who cant pass for what ever reason, to pass.
> 
> the ideal is (or should be)  to raise the bar not lower it.
> 
> in my opinion if the women want to do what the men are doing, then there should be no issue for them to do just that... pass the SAME tests, come up to the same standards as the men.
Click to expand...


The Israelis have the same standards across the board for their men and women, how come we can't match that? their women are pretty bad ass too.


----------



## Mad Scientist

SFC Ollie said:


> U.S. Army trainers will soon lead an effort to create gender-neutral physical standards for all soldiers as part of a plan to allow women to serve in infantry, Special Forces and other combat arms jobs.
> Army Submits Plan to Open Combat Jobs for Women | Military.com
> 
> 
> Translation: We will now lower the standards for everyone so that women can qualify the same as the men, who won't have to work as hard as they used to.
> 
> Ladies and gentlemen, for the first time I can honestly say that's not my military and I'm glad I'm out........
> 
> This is just one more step in the downward spiral of this once great country....
> 
> It's sad.


Can you imagine if KFC Ollie (Still Eating) "served" in say, 1946?:


> "I can't believe the Army is gonna' integrate them N*ggers into the Military! I'm glad I'm gettin; out!


Good to see he believes in "Equal Rights", "Civil Rights" and that "All Men are Created Equal".


----------



## SFC Ollie

American Communist said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Army trainers will soon lead an effort to create gender-neutral physical standards for all soldiers as part of a plan to allow women to serve in infantry, Special Forces and other combat arms jobs.
> Army Submits Plan to Open Combat Jobs for Women | Military.com
> 
> 
> Translation: We will now lower the standards for everyone so that women can qualify the same as the men, who won't have to work as hard as they used to.
> 
> Ladies and gentlemen, for the first time I can honestly say that's not my military and I'm glad I'm out........
> 
> This is just one more step in the downward spiral of this once great country....
> 
> It's sad.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you imagine if KFC Ollie (Still Eating) "served" in say, 1946?:
> 
> 
> 
> "I can't believe the Army is gonna' integrate them N*ggers into the Military! I'm glad I'm gettin; out!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good to see he believes in "Equal Rights", "Civil Rights" and that "All Men are Created Equal".
Click to expand...


Have you always had this problem? Please explain to us what the relevance of your childish post has to do with our military weakening its standards for combat arms MOS's. Or is that too much for your itty bitty brain to comprehend?


----------



## Bleipriester

SFC Ollie said:


> U.S. Army trainers will soon lead an effort to create gender-neutral physical standards for all soldiers as part of a plan to allow women to serve in infantry, Special Forces and other combat arms jobs.
> Army Submits Plan to Open Combat Jobs for Women | Military.com
> 
> 
> Translation: We will now lower the standards for everyone so that women can qualify the same as the men, who won't have to work as hard as they used to.
> 
> Ladies and gentlemen, for the first time I can honestly say that's not my military and I'm glad I'm out........
> 
> This is just one more step in the downward spiral of this once great country....
> 
> It's sad.


I wonder if this is due to equality or a lack of volunteers.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Bleipriester said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Army trainers will soon lead an effort to create gender-neutral physical standards for all soldiers as part of a plan to allow women to serve in infantry, Special Forces and other combat arms jobs.
> Army Submits Plan to Open Combat Jobs for Women | Military.com
> 
> 
> Translation: We will now lower the standards for everyone so that women can qualify the same as the men, who won't have to work as hard as they used to.
> 
> Ladies and gentlemen, for the first time I can honestly say that's not my military and I'm glad I'm out........
> 
> This is just one more step in the downward spiral of this once great country....
> 
> It's sad.
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if this is due to equality or a lack of volunteers.
Click to expand...


Now that is a good question.... Many women wouldn't want to go for it because they know they couldn't make it. Just as i knew I'd never make it through the Ranger Course.
My Grandson is infantry soon to deploy to Afghanistan. I need to ask him what he thinks about it.... I know he always comments about how great he feels after a road march or a 7 mile run.


----------



## Bleipriester

SFC Ollie said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Army trainers will soon lead an effort to create gender-neutral physical standards for all soldiers as part of a plan to allow women to serve in infantry, Special Forces and other combat arms jobs.
> Army Submits Plan to Open Combat Jobs for Women | Military.com
> 
> 
> Translation: We will now lower the standards for everyone so that women can qualify the same as the men, who won't have to work as hard as they used to.
> 
> Ladies and gentlemen, for the first time I can honestly say that's not my military and I'm glad I'm out........
> 
> This is just one more step in the downward spiral of this once great country....
> 
> It's sad.
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if this is due to equality or a lack of volunteers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now that is a good question.... Many women wouldn't want to go for it because they know they couldn't make it. Just as i knew I'd never make it through the Ranger Course.
> My Grandson is infantry soon to deploy to Afghanistan. I need to ask him what he thinks about it.... I know he always comments about how great he feels after a road march or a 7 mile run.
Click to expand...

A 7 mile run is a good thing for those who can do it. Makes feel free and they really need it after some months but it doens´t confront him with the Taliban and its suicide attacks. I am sure people feel great after surviving such an attack but in an outright other way...


----------



## numan

'
Women did pretty well in the Soviet Army in World War II.

As I recall, a Russian woman soldier was the first one into Hitler's Bunker.
.


----------



## numan

Bleipriester said:


> I wonder if this is due to equality or a lack of volunteers.


Don't worry. The US government will always find a way to trick stupid, brainwashed rednecks into joining their corrupt army.

Then they will poison their bodies with depleted uranium and chemicals and injections, and destroy their brains and nervous systems with brainwashing, terror, stress and the effects of committing war crimes.

Then the government will renege on all their promises and throw their gallant veterans into the garbage like squeezed lemon peels.

What!? Do you think we Americans have a sense of Community, like the Hitler Germans?
.


----------



## Bleipriester

numan said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if this is due to equality or a lack of volunteers.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't worry. The US government will always find a way to trick stupid, brainwashed rednecks into joining their corrupt army.
> 
> Then they will poison their bodies with depleted uranium and chemicals and injections, and destroy their brains and nervous systems with brainwashing, terror, stress and the effects of committing war crimes.
> 
> Then the government will renege on all their promises and throw their gallant veterans into the garbage like squeezed lemon peels.
> 
> What!? Do you think we Americans have a sense of Community, like the Hitler Germans?
> .
Click to expand...

I really dislike terms like "corrupt army" or "Hitler Germans".


----------



## SFC Ollie

Bleipriester said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if this is due to equality or a lack of volunteers.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't worry. The US government will always find a way to trick stupid, brainwashed rednecks into joining their corrupt army.
> 
> Then they will poison their bodies with depleted uranium and chemicals and injections, and destroy their brains and nervous systems with brainwashing, terror, stress and the effects of committing war crimes.
> 
> Then the government will renege on all their promises and throw their gallant veterans into the garbage like squeezed lemon peels.
> 
> What!? Do you think we Americans have a sense of Community, like the Hitler Germans?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I really dislike terms like "corrupt army" or "Hitler Germans".
Click to expand...


You have to excuse Numan, besides being an idiot he hates the government, at all levels.......


----------



## numan

SFC Ollie said:


> You have to excuse Numan...he hates the government, at all levels.......


The appropriate verb would be "despise" rather than "hate".
.


----------



## numan

Bleipriester said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if this is due to equality or a lack of volunteers.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't worry. The US government will always find a way to trick stupid, brainwashed rednecks into joining their corrupt army.
> 
> Then they will poison their bodies with depleted uranium and chemicals and injections, and destroy their brains and nervous systems with brainwashing, terror, stress and the effects of committing war crimes.
> 
> Then the government will renege on all their promises and throw their gallant veterans into the garbage like squeezed lemon peels.
> 
> What!? Do you think we Americans have a sense of Community, like the Hitler Germans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I really dislike terms like "corrupt army" or "Hitler Germans".
Click to expand...

Why? I have no problem with "Bushite Americans".

And do you know anything about the American military? 

"Corrupt" is by no means an adjective sufficiently strong to describe its criminality.
.


----------



## SFC Ollie

numan said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't worry. The US government will always find a way to trick stupid, brainwashed rednecks into joining their corrupt army.
> 
> Then they will poison their bodies with depleted uranium and chemicals and injections, and destroy their brains and nervous systems with brainwashing, terror, stress and the effects of committing war crimes.
> 
> Then the government will renege on all their promises and throw their gallant veterans into the garbage like squeezed lemon peels.
> 
> What!? Do you think we Americans have a sense of Community, like the Hitler Germans?
> 
> 
> 
> I really dislike terms like "corrupt army" or "Hitler Germans".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? I have no problem with "Bushite Americans".
> 
> And do you know anything about the American military?
> 
> "Corrupt" is by no means an adjective sufficiently strong to describe its criminality.
> .
Click to expand...


22 Years on active duty asswipe. And corrupt has nothing to do with it. You obviously know nothing.... And I mean you know nothing about anything. I'm yet to see you make an intelligent post. By the way, by attacking the military as you have done you also attack myself and all the other veterans out there. So yeah I'll take that personal.


----------



## numan

SFC Ollie said:


> By the way, by attacking the military as you have done you also attack myself and all the other veterans out there. So yeah I'll take that personal.


I wouldn't expect anything less from you, böhmischer Gefreiter.

---certainly not judicious thought.
.


----------



## SFC Ollie

You cannot insult by calling me a private, I've heard a lot worse. I stand on my record and I don't hide who i am and what I've done.

In fact I'm rather proud to be me. Shame you can't say the same........


----------



## High_Gravity

numan said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, by attacking the military as you have done you also attack myself and all the other veterans out there. So yeah I'll take that personal.
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't expect anything less from you, böhmischer Gefreiter.
> 
> ---certainly not judicious thought.
> .
Click to expand...


You are a fucking moron.


----------



## High_Gravity

Bleipriester said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Army trainers will soon lead an effort to create gender-neutral physical standards for all soldiers as part of a plan to allow women to serve in infantry, Special Forces and other combat arms jobs.
> Army Submits Plan to Open Combat Jobs for Women | Military.com
> 
> 
> Translation: We will now lower the standards for everyone so that women can qualify the same as the men, who won't have to work as hard as they used to.
> 
> Ladies and gentlemen, for the first time I can honestly say that's not my military and I'm glad I'm out........
> 
> This is just one more step in the downward spiral of this once great country....
> 
> It's sad.
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if this is due to equality or a* lack of volunteers*.
Click to expand...


I think its that. Lots of able bodied men just doddling around with no jobs playing X Box, they have no interest in serving.


----------



## High_Gravity

numan said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to excuse Numan...he hates the government, at all levels.......
> 
> 
> 
> The appropriate verb would be "despise" rather than "hate".
> .
Click to expand...


Than get the fuck on, you pussy ass faggot. Move to Somalia where they have no government.


----------



## namvet

my guess would be because women are failing the obstacle course at an alarming rate

Two female officers entered the demanding Marine Infantry Officer Course this week  only the second time in the history of the course that women have been allowed to compete to become ground combat leaders  but neither passed the grueling obstacle course on Thursday, military officials said.

The women made it through the first few days of the course.

Of the 110 students who began the course this week, 96 are still enrolled  the women were joined by 12 of their Marine brothers who also failed to complete the obstacle course entirely or could not complete it in the time allotted.

This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here » Blog Archive » Two more females drop out of Marine?s Infantry Officer Course (UPDATED)


----------



## numan

SFC Ollie said:


> You cannot insult by calling me a private....


You should look up what a böhmischer Gefreiter is (or perhaps I should say _THE_ böhmischer Gefreiter). It's not a private.

It is what General von Hindenberg called a high-ranking subordinate. One might expect you to feel complimented, rather than insulted.
.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Did you know my first wife was German and that I have 2 sons living in Germany? Yes that means I speak a fair amount of German and Gefreiter is a Private. I've no clue what a Bohmischer could be. But one thing I know for certain, I have many doubts that you are making an attempt to compliment me.


----------



## numan

SFC Ollie said:


> Did you know my first wife was German and that I have 2 sons living in Germany? Yes that means I speak a fair amount of German and Gefreiter is a Private.


_Gefreiter_ is usually translated "corporal", though in the US Army I think it can be equivalent to a private first class.



> I've no clue what a Bohmischer could be. But one thing I know for certain, I have many doubts that you are making an attempt to compliment me.


How sad to see so much cynicism in one so young.
.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Actually it is normally the second to the lowest rank possible. In the US Army that would be a private. I believe it may be called a Lance Corporal in the Swiss military, but still the second lowest enlisted rank. Something that I held for less than 3 months.

Now do you have anything intelligent to relate to us about the subject matter? You know, the OP....


----------



## Mad Scientist

Better be careful Newman. KFC Ollie is gettin' ready to call you an "asswipe".

You may NEVER recover!


----------



## numan

'

I have already placed a stick between my teeth to help me endure the pain.
.


----------



## Sunshine

SFC Ollie said:


> U.S. Army trainers will soon lead an effort to create gender-neutral physical standards for all soldiers as part of a plan to allow women to serve in infantry, Special Forces and other combat arms jobs.
> Army Submits Plan to Open Combat Jobs for Women | Military.com
> 
> 
> Translation: We will now lower the standards for everyone so that women can qualify the same as the men, who won't have to work as hard as they used to.
> 
> Ladies and gentlemen, for the first time I can honestly say that's not my military and I'm glad I'm out........
> 
> This is just one more step in the downward spiral of this once great country....
> 
> It's sad.



I think that if a woman wants to advance in the military there should be a way.  There are many women who have served in combat zones and others who are still there.  I know a nurse who was deployed for over a year.  She came back to work as messed up in the head with PTSD as any veteran I ever treated.   It would seem that there is enough 'general type' work now that if they would just count the things women do that women could advance.  Nurses in a combat zone putting American fighting men back together and being at risk for death themselves should, IMO, be adequate without the military having to bend itself into a pretzel.  And I can tell you all about 'secondary' PTSD from having worked with veterans.  The therapists on the home front who have to put vets minds back together actually get PTSD from listening to their stuff.


----------



## Warrior102

SFC Ollie said:


> This is just one more step in the downward spiral of this once great country....



Amen brother


----------



## SFC Ollie

Sunshine said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Army trainers will soon lead an effort to create gender-neutral physical standards for all soldiers as part of a plan to allow women to serve in infantry, Special Forces and other combat arms jobs.
> Army Submits Plan to Open Combat Jobs for Women | Military.com
> 
> 
> Translation: We will now lower the standards for everyone so that women can qualify the same as the men, who won't have to work as hard as they used to.
> 
> Ladies and gentlemen, for the first time I can honestly say that's not my military and I'm glad I'm out........
> 
> This is just one more step in the downward spiral of this once great country....
> 
> It's sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that if a woman wants to advance in the military there should be a way.  There are many women who have served in combat zones and others who are still there.  I know a nurse who was deployed for over a year.  She came back to work as messed up in the head with PTSD as any veteran I ever treated.   It would seem that there is enough 'general type' work now that if they would just count the things women do that women could advance.  Nurses in a combat zone putting American fighting men back together and being at risk for death themselves should, IMO, be adequate without the military having to bend itself into a pretzel.  And I can tell you all about 'secondary' PTSD from having worked with veterans.  The therapists on the home front who have to put vets minds back together actually get PTSD from listening to their stuff.
Click to expand...


You are correct, in fact a Nurse is always an Officer... But what they are looking at is lowering the Physical standards for combat arms jobs so that more women can qualify for those jobs. And lowering the standards simply is not a good idea, ever........


----------



## numan

SFC Ollie said:


> This is just one more step in the downward spiral of this once great country....


I do hope so.

Perhaps, one day, we will reach the point where we will even be finally free of the foul incubus of the Constitution, and throw it in the garbage bin of history.

I always tell people that if Americans had any sense, they would put their affairs under the direction of the British Colonial Office, until such time as Americans are ready for self-government.
.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Damn,  another hour before I can neg this douche bag again.......


----------



## numan

'

We all have our trials, böhmischer Gefreiter.

.


----------



## namvet

the new USA


----------



## bripat9643

Watch the military lower the standards for women.  You know they'r egoing to do it to avoid the wrath of MOOCHelle and the rest of the feminists.

Marines: Most Female Recruits Don't Meet New Pullup Standard : NPR

_Starting Jan. 1, every woman in the Marines Corps was supposed to meet a new physical standard by performing three pullups. But that has been put off. 

The Marine Corps announced it quietly. There was no news conference  just a notice on its social media sites and an item on its own TV show, The Corps Report. 

Lance Cpl. Ally Beiswanger explained that the pullup test had been put off until sometime next year, to gather more data and "ensure all female Marines are given the best opportunity to succeed." 

So far, female Marines are not succeeding. Fifty-five percent of female recruits tested at the end of boot camp were doing fewer than three pullups; only 1 percent of male recruits failed the test. 

The three pullups is already the minimum required for all male Marines. Now the Marine Corps has postponed the plan, and that's raising questions about whether women have the physical strength to handle ground combat, which they'll be allowed to do beginning in 2016. 

Marine officers would not talk to NPR on tape. They said they delayed the pullup requirement to avoid losing not only recruits but also current female Marines who can't pass the test. 

The Marine Corps has been using it to test upper body strength for men for more than 40 years. And that upper body strength, they say, is necessary to serve in ground combat: to pull yourself out of a canal in Afghanistan, to climb over a mud wall, to carry an ammunition box.​_


----------



## Daktoria

Marines, neoconservatism, feminism...

...same thing. Isn't that what neocons campaigned on when it came to the wars in the Middle East anyway - how radical Islamofascists treated their women?

If I only had a nickel every time people complained about feminists because they support women being allowed to abuse beta males...

...besides, the marines will probably enjoy having more women in their ranks anyway to help compensate for their lack of social assimilation into civilian society.

Aye yay yay......


----------



## Moonglow

The military started to allow females and males to be trained jointly in basic training in 1982. You know it was really the feminist Nancy Reagan of which you reffer.


----------



## bripat9643

Daktoria said:


> Marines, neoconservatism, feminism...
> 
> ...same thing. Isn't that what neocons campaigned on when it came to the wars in the Middle East anyway - how radical Islamofascists treated their women?
> 
> If I only had a nickel every time people complained about feminists because they support women being allowed to abuse beta males...
> 
> ...besides, the marines will probably enjoy having more women in their ranks anyway to help compensate for their lack of social assimilation into civilian society.
> 
> Aye yay yay......



You're a moron.  There's no point bothering with a substantive response to your infantile babble.


----------



## Daktoria

Moonglow said:


> The military started to allow females and males to be trained jointly in basic training in 1982. You know it was really the feminist Nancy Reagan of which you reffer.



Exactly.

It's really amazing how often conservatives ignore how much feminism has infected their ideology.

Rugged individualism hooah!  /facepalm

Yes, let's just ignore domestic violence against men and how the public education system tolerates girls bullying boys because boys are supposed to be tough and so many conservatives aren't willing to confront female, feminist, unionized teachers.  

Let's just throw boys into the military instead after getting socially alienated by the destruction of family values, ruining of public education, and tolerance of mass media pop culture consumerism backed by the free market.

It's no wonder the right is viewed as being anti-intellectual.


----------



## deltex1

Help her out...arms around her thighs...face in her ass...lift up!  Oooooorah!


----------



## Moonglow

Daktoria said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> The military started to allow females and males to be trained jointly in basic training in 1982. You know it was really the feminist Nancy Reagan of which you reffer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> It's really amazing how often conservatives ignore how much feminism has infected their ideology.
> 
> Rugged individualism hooah!  /facepalm
> 
> Yes, let's just ignore domestic violence against men and how the public education system tolerates girls bullying boys because boys are supposed to be tough and so many conservatives aren't willing to confront female, feminist, unionized teachers.
> 
> Let's just throw boys into the military instead after getting socially alienated by the destruction of family values, ruining of public education, and tolerance of mass media pop culture consumerism backed by the free market.
> 
> It's no wonder the right is viewed as being anti-intellectual.
Click to expand...


You eat all that at once?


----------



## Daktoria

bripat9643 said:


> Daktoria said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marines, neoconservatism, feminism...
> 
> ...same thing. Isn't that what neocons campaigned on when it came to the wars in the Middle East anyway - how radical Islamofascists treated their women?
> 
> If I only had a nickel every time people complained about feminists because they support women being allowed to abuse beta males...
> 
> ...besides, the marines will probably enjoy having more women in their ranks anyway to help compensate for their lack of social assimilation into civilian society.
> 
> Aye yay yay......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a moron.  There's no point bothering with a substantive response to your infantile babble.
Click to expand...


Not really.  You're just a neocon who doesn't understand what conservatism originally stood for: Neoconservatism and paleoconservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Old Right (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)


----------



## Kondor3

Daktoria said:


> Marines, neoconservatism, feminism...
> 
> ...same thing. Isn't that what neocons campaigned on when it came to the wars in the Middle East anyway - how radical Islamofascists treated their women?
> 
> If I only had a nickel every time people complained about feminists because they support women being allowed to abuse beta males...
> 
> ...besides, the marines will probably enjoy having more women in their ranks anyway to help compensate for their lack of social assimilation into civilian society.
> 
> Aye yay yay......


That was a crappy thing to say about the United States Marines...

Enjoy the Neg-Rep...

From a US Army veteran, watching the backs of other service-folk at the moment...


----------



## bripat9643

Daktoria said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> The military started to allow females and males to be trained jointly in basic training in 1982. You know it was really the feminist Nancy Reagan of which you reffer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> It's really amazing how often conservatives ignore how much feminism has infected their ideology.
> 
> Rugged individualism hooah!  /facepalm
> 
> Yes, let's just ignore domestic violence against men and how the public education system tolerates girls bullying boys because boys are supposed to be tough and so many conservatives aren't willing to confront female, feminist, unionized teachers.
> 
> Let's just throw boys into the military instead after getting socially alienated by the destruction of family values, ruining of public education, and tolerance of mass media pop culture consumerism backed by the free market.
> 
> It's no wonder the right is viewed as being anti-intellectual.
Click to expand...


Apparently you believe the above drivel is supposed to make some kind of sense.  Aside from being totally moronic, what does any of that have to do with the question of whether females are physically able to perform in combat?


----------



## Daktoria

Kondor3 said:


> Daktoria said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marines, neoconservatism, feminism...
> 
> ...same thing. Isn't that what neocons campaigned on when it came to the wars in the Middle East anyway - how radical Islamofascists treated their women?
> 
> If I only had a nickel every time people complained about feminists because they support women being allowed to abuse beta males...
> 
> ...besides, the marines will probably enjoy having more women in their ranks anyway to help compensate for their lack of social assimilation into civilian society.
> 
> Aye yay yay......
> 
> 
> 
> That was a crappy thing to say about the United States Marines...
> 
> Enjoy the Neg-Rep...
> 
> From a US Army veteran, watching the backs of other service-folk at the moment...
Click to expand...


Why is it crappy to say something about how people aren't socially assimilated into civilian society?

Are you saying we should deliberately alienate people, especially men, instead and drill them into rugged individualism rather than respecting who's on the inside that counts?

Pardon me, but I don't think we should be relying on the military to employ people and fight wars around the world just because we refuse to care about how our social fabric is tearing apart.

Instead, we should start caring.


----------



## bripat9643

Daktoria said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daktoria said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marines, neoconservatism, feminism...
> 
> ...same thing. Isn't that what neocons campaigned on when it came to the wars in the Middle East anyway - how radical Islamofascists treated their women?
> 
> If I only had a nickel every time people complained about feminists because they support women being allowed to abuse beta males...
> 
> ...besides, the marines will probably enjoy having more women in their ranks anyway to help compensate for their lack of social assimilation into civilian society.
> 
> Aye yay yay......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a moron.  There's no point bothering with a substantive response to your infantile babble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really.  You're just a neocon who doesn't understand what conservatism originally stood for: Neoconservatism and paleoconservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Old Right (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
Click to expand...


So conservatism used to stand for sending women into combat?

Like I said, you're a moron.


----------



## Kondor3

Daktoria said:


> "..._Why is it crappy to say_..."


If you have to ask the question, you will not understand the answer...


----------



## bripat9643

Daktoria said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daktoria said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marines, neoconservatism, feminism...
> 
> ...same thing. Isn't that what neocons campaigned on when it came to the wars in the Middle East anyway - how radical Islamofascists treated their women?
> 
> If I only had a nickel every time people complained about feminists because they support women being allowed to abuse beta males...
> 
> ...besides, the marines will probably enjoy having more women in their ranks anyway to help compensate for their lack of social assimilation into civilian society.
> 
> Aye yay yay......
> 
> 
> 
> That was a crappy thing to say about the United States Marines...
> 
> Enjoy the Neg-Rep...
> 
> From a US Army veteran, watching the backs of other service-folk at the moment...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it crappy to say something about how people aren't socially assimilated into civilian society?
> 
> Are you saying we should deliberately alienate people, especially men, instead and drill them into rugged individualism rather than respecting who's on the inside that counts?
> 
> Pardon me, but I don't think we should be relying on the military to employ people and fight wars around the world just because we refuse to care about how our social fabric is tearing apart.
> 
> Instead, we should start caring.
Click to expand...


You obviously aren't socially assimilated into civilian society since you don't even realize you are insulting an entire group of people.  

I only wish I could neg you again since you're one of the dumbest libturds I have encountered so far in this forum.


----------



## bripat9643

Moonglow said:


> The military started to allow females and males to be trained jointly in basic training in 1982. You know it was really the feminist Nancy Reagan of which you reffer.



Training with males is one thing.  Going into combat loaded down with 60 lbs of gear is another.


----------



## Daktoria

bripat9643 said:


> Daktoria said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was a crappy thing to say about the United States Marines...
> 
> Enjoy the Neg-Rep...
> 
> From a US Army veteran, watching the backs of other service-folk at the moment...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it crappy to say something about how people aren't socially assimilated into civilian society?
> 
> Are you saying we should deliberately alienate people, especially men, instead and drill them into rugged individualism rather than respecting who's on the inside that counts?
> 
> Pardon me, but I don't think we should be relying on the military to employ people and fight wars around the world just because we refuse to care about how our social fabric is tearing apart.
> 
> Instead, we should start caring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You obviously aren't socially assimilated into civilian society since you don't even realize your are insulting an entire group of people.
> 
> I only wish I could neg you again since you're one of the dumbest libturds I have encountered so far in this forum.
Click to expand...


I only wish you knew what a liberal actually was.

The marines you stand up for are an example of neoconservatism which is actually liberalism in conservative clothing.

Why?

...because the Zionism which neoconservatism supports is the foundation of the Progressive Era's Social Gospel's Protestant Work Ethic, the exact premise that founds rugged individualism in the first place by the way...

...and it even goes further than that.  Have you ever heard of the New York Intellectuals?

If you want to neg-rep someone for being a "libturd", then you can neg-rep yourself.


----------



## Antares

Daktoria said:


> Marines, neoconservatism, feminism...
> 
> ...same thing. Isn't that what neocons campaigned on when it came to the wars in the Middle East anyway - how radical Islamofascists treated their women?
> 
> If I only had a nickel every time people complained about feminists because they support women being allowed to abuse beta males...
> 
> ...besides, the marines will probably enjoy having more women in their ranks anyway to help compensate for their lack of social assimilation into civilian society.
> 
> Aye yay yay......



We'll let you partner with one then.

Me?
If I need to be pulled out of a situation I don't want one with me.


----------



## Daktoria

...and why does that situation exist in the first place?

Did you ever consider that the very maintenance of defense provokes the need for defense to begin with?

For example, if we weren't intervening in the Middle East for decades upon generations, why would we have a problem with radical Islamists today?


----------



## bripat9643

Daktoria said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daktoria said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it crappy to say something about how people aren't socially assimilated into civilian society?
> 
> Are you saying we should deliberately alienate people, especially men, instead and drill them into rugged individualism rather than respecting who's on the inside that counts?
> 
> Pardon me, but I don't think we should be relying on the military to employ people and fight wars around the world just because we refuse to care about how our social fabric is tearing apart.
> 
> Instead, we should start caring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously aren't socially assimilated into civilian society since you don't even realize your are insulting an entire group of people.
> 
> I only wish I could neg you again since you're one of the dumbest libturds I have encountered so far in this forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I only wish you knew what a liberal actually was.
> 
> The marines you stand up for are an example of neoconservatism which is actually liberalism in conservative clothing.
> 
> Why?
> 
> ...because the Zionism which neoconservatism supports is the foundation of the Progressive Era's Social Gospel's Protestant Work Ethic, the exact premise that founds rugged individualism in the first place by the way...
> 
> ...and it even goes further than that.  Have you ever heard of the New York Intellectuals?
> 
> If you want to neg-rep someone for being a "libturd", then you can neg-rep yourself.
Click to expand...


The term "Zionism" is only used by anti-Semites.  All your blather is totally absurd and meaningless.  It has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.  Conservatives of any stripe have never supported putting women into combat.  That's purely a libturd position.


----------



## bripat9643

Daktoria said:


> ...and why does that situation exist in the first place?
> 
> Did you ever consider that the very maintenance of defense provokes the need for defense to begin with?
> 
> For example, if we weren't intervening in the Middle East for decades upon generations, why would we have a problem with radical Islamists today?



So the best defense is no defense?

You are setting new libturd standards for idiocy.


----------



## kaz

bripat9643 said:


> Watch the military lower the standards for women



Women are a victim of your sexist counting...


----------



## Antares

Daktoria said:


> ...and why does that situation exist in the first place?
> 
> Did you ever consider that the very maintenance of defense provokes the need for defense to begin with?
> 
> For example, if we weren't intervening in the Middle East for decades upon generations, why would we have a problem with radical Islamists today?



Sorry son , the situation exists because despite your utopian beliefs man is not a peaceful animal. He is selfish, violent and greedy. It was ever thus, pacifists and existenialists don't survive in the real world.


----------



## deltex1

Daktoria said:


> ...and why does that situation exist in the first place?
> 
> Did you ever consider that the very maintenance of defense provokes the need for defense to begin with?
> 
> For example, if we weren't intervening in the Middle East for decades upon generations, why would we have a problem with radical Islamists today?



I suppose that's why bullies always pick of the tough kids??  No...never thought of that.


----------



## Daktoria

bripat9643 said:


> Daktoria said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...and why does that situation exist in the first place?
> 
> Did you ever consider that the very maintenance of defense provokes the need for defense to begin with?
> 
> For example, if we weren't intervening in the Middle East for decades upon generations, why would we have a problem with radical Islamists today?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the best defense is no defense?
> 
> You are setting new libturd standards for idiocy.
Click to expand...


The best defense is preventing the problem before it starts.  

For example, don't intervene in foreign countries in the name of some people who are actually destroying our social fabric back home.  Don't take their natural resources in order to empower the destruction of our social fabric back home.  

Instead, deal with the destruction of social fabric back home instead of provoking others into trying to deal with it for us.

I mean the Wars in Iraq and on Terror are basically like having a neighbor who tries to intervene in your dysfunctional household where you're getting abused, only for you to go back over after he does so, and punching him in the face...

...and then on top of that, you talk about how that intervening neighbor contradicts your abusive housemate (see: how neocons criticize how radical Islamists treat their women despite having problems with feminists back home).

Do you understand how bona fide moronic that is?


----------



## Kondor3

Daktoria said:


> "..._don't intervene in foreign countries in the name of some people who are actually destroying our social fabric back home_..."


Who is destroying our social fabric back home?


----------



## bripat9643

Kondor3 said:


> Daktoria said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._don't intervene in foreign countries in the name of some people who are actually destroying our social fabric back home_..."
> 
> 
> 
> Who is destroying our social fabric back home?
Click to expand...


He is, along with the rest of his ilk.


----------



## Steve_McGarrett

Daktoria said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daktoria said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...and why does that situation exist in the first place?
> 
> Did you ever consider that the very maintenance of defense provokes the need for defense to begin with?
> 
> For example, if we weren't intervening in the Middle East for decades upon generations, why would we have a problem with radical Islamists today?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the best defense is no defense?
> 
> You are setting new libturd standards for idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The best defense is preventing the problem before it starts.
> 
> For example, don't intervene in foreign countries in the name of some people who are actually destroying our *social fabric* back home.  Don't take their natural resources in order to empower the destruction of our* social fabric *back home.
> 
> Instead, deal with the destruction of *social fabric* back home ?
Click to expand...

Define our 'Social Fabric'


----------



## Daktoria

Kondor3 said:


> Daktoria said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._don't intervene in foreign countries in the name of some people who are actually destroying our social fabric back home_..."
> 
> 
> 
> Who is destroying our social fabric back home?
Click to expand...


Those who own the media:

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/An-Empire-Their-Own-Hollywood/dp/0385265573]An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood: Neal Gabler: 9780385265577: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]


The music behind Hollywood's golden age - Telegraph

Jews in Hollywood Jewish Actors Jewish Directors Jewish Producers

Seven Jewish Americans Control Most US Media

Jews In The American Media | Hollywood

Those who own psychology:

Judaism and Psychology - My Jewish Learning

Psychology in the United States | Jewish Women's Archive

Jewish Women and the Feminist Revolution (Jewish Women's Archive) 

Those who believe it's their entitlement to judge other people's performance of good works to represent a predestined calling because they're supposedly chosen by God and know what's the practical way to live your life better than you do:

Are the Jews the Chosen People? - Questions & Answers

The "Chosen People" | Jewish Virtual Library

The Chosen People - Torah.org

That's who.


----------



## bitterlyclingin

What better way to create a military more easily defeated on the field. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Obama's "Fundamental Transformation Of America" continues apace. We have to beg the Russians for a ride to the ISS. The Chinese have a rover on the Moon and are planning a manned base there as well as a Mars probe in the works. John Kerry is busy fellating the Mullahs and the rest of the services have been forbidden to utter anything remotely similar to the word 'God'

FDR asked all Americans to go to church and pray for the success of the D-Day invasion, Obama refused to allow FDR's words to be inscribed on the WWII memorial even though most of the memorial was financed by private donations. The Union Army eradicated slavery, thereby freeing Jessee Jackson's, Al Sharption's, and Jeremiah Wright's predecessors,  marching to the "Battle Hymn Of The Republic" The Founders references  "God' frequently in their drafts and papers, but Obama and his henchmen want nothing to do with an almighty anywhere or anyplace in the military. 
What better way to lose a war by than by cutting the heart, the spine, and the guts that sustained them for the last two hundred and thirty eight years out of the military.


----------



## Daktoria

Antares said:


> Daktoria said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...and why does that situation exist in the first place?
> 
> Did you ever consider that the very maintenance of defense provokes the need for defense to begin with?
> 
> For example, if we weren't intervening in the Middle East for decades upon generations, why would we have a problem with radical Islamists today?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry son , the situation exists because despite your utopian beliefs man is not a peaceful animal. He is selfish, violent and greedy. It was ever thus, pacifists and existenialists don't survive in the real world.
Click to expand...

 [MENTION=40954]Antares[/MENTION]

I never denied the value of police.

We're talking about foreign policy here, not social policy.  I agree that human nature is gray, not necessarily bright.


----------



## Antares

Daktoria said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daktoria said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...and why does that situation exist in the first place?
> 
> Did you ever consider that the very maintenance of defense provokes the need for defense to begin with?
> 
> For example, if we weren't intervening in the Middle East for decades upon generations, why would we have a problem with radical Islamists today?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry son , the situation exists because despite your utopian beliefs man is not a peaceful animal. He is selfish, violent and greedy. It was ever thus, pacifists and existenialists don't survive in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> [MENTION=40954]Antares[/MENTION]
> 
> I never denied the value of police.
> 
> We're talking about foreign policy here, not social policy.  I agree that human nature is gray, not necessarily bright.
Click to expand...


Your position, isolationism simply isn't valid.

Your hatred of the Jew renders you useless.


----------



## bodecea

bripat9643 said:


> Watch the military lower the standards for women.  You know they'r egoing to do it to avoid the wrath of MOOCHelle and the rest of the feminists.
> 
> Marines: Most Female Recruits Don't Meet New Pullup Standard : NPR
> 
> _Starting Jan. 1, every woman in the Marines Corps was supposed to meet a new physical standard by performing three pullups. But that has been put off.
> 
> The Marine Corps announced it quietly. There was no news conference  just a notice on its social media sites and an item on its own TV show, The Corps Report.
> 
> Lance Cpl. Ally Beiswanger explained that the pullup test had been put off until sometime next year, to gather more data and "ensure all female Marines are given the best opportunity to succeed."
> 
> So far, female Marines are not succeeding. Fifty-five percent of female recruits tested at the end of boot camp were doing fewer than three pullups; only 1 percent of male recruits failed the test.
> 
> The three pullups is already the minimum required for all male Marines. Now the Marine Corps has postponed the plan, and that's raising questions about whether women have the physical strength to handle ground combat, which they'll be allowed to do beginning in 2016.
> 
> Marine officers would not talk to NPR on tape. They said they delayed the pullup requirement to avoid losing not only recruits but also current female Marines who can't pass the test.
> 
> The Marine Corps has been using it to test upper body strength for men for more than 40 years. And that upper body strength, they say, is necessary to serve in ground combat: to pull yourself out of a canal in Afghanistan, to climb over a mud wall, to carry an ammunition box.​_



If they don't meet it, they don't meet it....they should work to be able to do it....there are certain exercises that can be recommended for upper body strength if they want to cut it in the Marines.


----------



## g5000

Moonglow said:


> The military started to allow females and males to be trained jointly in basic training in 1982. You know it was really the feminist Nancy Reagan of which you reffer.



The females and males did not have the same physical standards, dipshit.  Not even close.  And they were not co-ed companies. And women were not allowed in combat.


----------



## Antares

g5000 said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> The military started to allow females and males to be trained jointly in basic training in 1982. You know it was really the feminist Nancy Reagan of which you reffer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The females and males did not have the same physical standards, dipshit.  Not even close.  And they were not co-ed companies. And women were not allowed in combat.
Click to expand...


Sorry....my partner in the MP'S was a woman....despite my protests.
Yes it was peace time, but she was a liability.


----------



## OriginalShroom

Democrats are really hypocritical when it comes to the way they want women treated.

First they claim that women need special laws to protect them from men at home and in business.  But then they turn around and claim that women are as tough as men and can be in combat units.


----------



## g5000

Antares said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> The military started to allow females and males to be trained jointly in basic training in 1982. You know it was really the feminist Nancy Reagan of which you reffer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The females and males did not have the same physical standards, dipshit.  Not even close.  And they were not co-ed companies. And women were not allowed in combat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry....my partner in the MP'S was a woman....despite my protests.
> Yes it was peace time, but she was a liability.
Click to expand...


I am deeply opposed to women in combat, and in many other billets.  I was pointing out to Moonglow that just because females and males train on the same base does not mean they are training to the same standards.  His Nancy Reagan premise is completely bogus.

This women-in-combat bullshit all started with Pat Schroeder, and I don't want anyone to ever forget it.


----------



## Daktoria

Antares said:


> Daktoria said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry son , the situation exists because despite your utopian beliefs man is not a peaceful animal. He is selfish, violent and greedy. It was ever thus, pacifists and existenialists don't survive in the real world.
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=40954]Antares[/MENTION]
> 
> I never denied the value of police.
> 
> We're talking about foreign policy here, not social policy.  I agree that human nature is gray, not necessarily bright.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your position, isolationism simply isn't valid.
> 
> Your hatred of the Jew renders you useless.
Click to expand...


What's useful is subjective.  Judging people on the basis of being useful is intolerant.  Judaism judges people that way as well, so Judaism is intolerant.  Perhaps we shouldn't associate with the intolerant.

I never said anything about isolationism either.  Just because you're involved in world politics doesn't mean you have to be the world's policeman.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Moonglow said:


> The military started to allow females and males to be trained jointly in basic training in 1982. You know it was really the feminist Nancy Reagan of which you reffer.



And now neither the army or the Marine Corps allow it. The Marine Corps never allowed it.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Daktoria said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daktoria said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._don't intervene in foreign countries in the name of some people who are actually destroying our social fabric back home_..."
> 
> 
> 
> Who is destroying our social fabric back home?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those who own the media:
> 
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/An-Empire-Their-Own-Hollywood/dp/0385265573]An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood: Neal Gabler: 9780385265577: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]
> 
> 
> The music behind Hollywood's golden age - Telegraph
> 
> Jews in Hollywood Jewish Actors Jewish Directors Jewish Producers
> 
> Seven Jewish Americans Control Most US Media
> 
> Jews In The American Media | Hollywood
> 
> Those who own psychology:
> 
> Judaism and Psychology - My Jewish Learning
> 
> Psychology in the United States | Jewish Women's Archive
> 
> Jewish Women and the Feminist Revolution (Jewish Women's Archive)
> 
> Those who believe it's their entitlement to judge other people's performance of good works to represent a predestined calling because they're supposedly chosen by God and know what's the practical way to live your life better than you do:
> 
> Are the Jews the Chosen People? - Questions & Answers
> 
> The "Chosen People" | Jewish Virtual Library
> 
> The Chosen People - Torah.org
> 
> That's who.
Click to expand...


Ahh a Jew hater, that explains a lot.


----------



## Kondor3

RetiredGySgt said:


> Daktoria said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is destroying our social fabric back home?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those who own the media:
> 
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/An-Empire-Their-Own-Hollywood/dp/0385265573]An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood: Neal Gabler: 9780385265577: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]
> 
> 
> The music behind Hollywood's golden age - Telegraph
> 
> Jews in Hollywood Jewish Actors Jewish Directors Jewish Producers
> 
> Seven Jewish Americans Control Most US Media
> 
> Jews In The American Media | Hollywood
> 
> Those who own psychology:
> 
> Judaism and Psychology - My Jewish Learning
> 
> Psychology in the United States | Jewish Women's Archive
> 
> Jewish Women and the Feminist Revolution (Jewish Women's Archive)
> 
> Those who believe it's their entitlement to judge other people's performance of good works to represent a predestined calling because they're supposedly chosen by God and know what's the practical way to live your life better than you do:
> 
> Are the Jews the Chosen People? - Questions & Answers
> 
> The "Chosen People" | Jewish Virtual Library
> 
> The Chosen People - Torah.org
> 
> That's who.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahh a Jew hater, that explains a lot.
Click to expand...

Yeah... I was pretty sure that that was where 'it' was going but I wanted 'it' to condemn 'itself' on its own, without any help. Mission accomplished. Next Jew-hating troll, please.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

g5000 said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> The military started to allow females and males to be trained jointly in basic training in 1982. You know it was really the feminist Nancy Reagan of which you reffer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The females and males did not have the same physical standards, dipshit.  Not even close.  And they were not co-ed companies. And women were not allowed in combat.
Click to expand...


Actually for a short time the Army had coed training companies. Not only didn't it work but they had things like pregnant basic trainees.


----------



## bripat9643

Daktoria said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daktoria said:
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=40954]Antares[/MENTION]
> 
> I never denied the value of police.
> 
> We're talking about foreign policy here, not social policy.  I agree that human nature is gray, not necessarily bright.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your position, isolationism simply isn't valid.
> 
> Your hatred of the Jew renders you useless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's useful is subjective.  Judging people on the basis of being useful is intolerant.  Judaism judges people that way as well, so Judaism is intolerant.  Perhaps we shouldn't associate with the intolerant.
Click to expand...


If you're having an operation on your heart, do you want a surgeon who got 'A's in medical school, or do you want someone who couldn't pass the course?  Is expecting a surgeon to be useful in a heart bypass operation "intolerant?"

If you look up the definition of "liberal moron" in the dictionary, you'll find your picture there.


----------



## SwimExpert

More information is needed here.  It's standard procedure that recruits graduating basic training are not required to meet the physical fitness standards.  Instead, a lower standard is required by the end of basic training, with the regular standard being required in order to graduate advanced training.


----------



## Peterf

I am amazed that some messages suppose that the purpose of the USMC is to defeat the enemy.   That's so olutdated!

Today the role of all the US armed forces is to make women feel good and sustain the illusion that they are, in every context, the equal of men.

What next? Will some misguided poster suggest that the prime purpose of fire services is to put out fires,  rather than to advance the cause of gender and 'racial' equality?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

SwimExpert said:


> More information is needed here.  It's standard procedure that recruits graduating basic training are not required to meet the physical fitness standards.  Instead, a lower standard is required by the end of basic training, with the regular standard being required in order to graduate advanced training.



Not in the Marine Corps. One must pass the regular PT test before graduating.

The Marine Corps also changed how you are allowed to do Pull ups. When I was in you could "kip" use your back and legs to swing yourself up and help out your arms. Now it is straight up and down no swinging no KIP.

I could do 20 pull ups with a Kip, maybe 7 with out on a good day.


----------



## Wacky Quacky

Come on guys, this issue has nothing to do with Obama or Democrats. This was the military, specifically the Marines, increasing standards. And if this doesn't pan out it won't be lowering standards, but simply returning them to what they were just a short while ago.

I'm torn on this one. While I have no issue with women serving in combat roles, and they should be held to higher physical standards than what they currently are. But women's bodies simply are not designed for pull ups, and pull ups are not the best test for combat readiness anyways.

Bring standards for women up to where men are for the run and the sit ups, and figure something else out for the pull ups.


----------



## candycorn

Wacky Quacky said:


> Come on guys, this issue has nothing to do with Obama or Democrats. This was the military, specifically the Marines, increasing standards. And if this doesn't pan out it won't be lowering standards, but simply returning them to what they were just a short while ago.
> 
> I'm torn on this one. While I have no issue with women serving in combat roles, and they should be held to higher physical standards than what they currently are. But women's bodies simply are not designed for pull ups, and pull ups are not the best test for combat readiness anyways.
> 
> Bring standards for women up to where men are for the run and the sit ups, and figure something else out for the pull ups.



It's okay, they can pull voting levers just fine as 332-206 proves.  
Meanwhile Al Queda continues to master the monkey bars.


----------



## Antares

Wacky Quacky said:


> Come on guys, this issue has nothing to do with Obama or Democrats. This was the military, specifically the Marines, increasing standards. And if this doesn't pan out it won't be lowering standards, but simply returning them to what they were just a short while ago.
> 
> I'm torn on this one. While I have no issue with women serving in combat roles, and they should be held to higher physical standards than what they currently are. But women's bodies simply are not designed for pull ups, and pull ups are not the best test for combat readiness anyways.
> 
> Bring standards for women up to where men are for the run and the sit ups, and figure something else out for the pull ups.



How many do you think can pull a 200 lb man out of a bad spot?

They don't belong in the trenches.


----------



## bripat9643

Wacky Quacky said:


> Come on guys, this issue has nothing to do with Obama or Democrats. This was the military, specifically the Marines, increasing standards. And if this doesn't pan out it won't be lowering standards, but simply returning them to what they were just a short while ago.
> 
> I'm torn on this one. While I have no issue with women serving in combat roles, and they should be held to higher physical standards than what they currently are. But women's bodies simply are not designed for pull ups, and pull ups are not the best test for combat readiness anyways.
> 
> Bring standards for women up to where men are for the run and the sit ups, and figure something else out for the pull ups.



As the article explain, upper body strength is necessary for many battle situations, like pulling yourself out of a ditch.  Anyone who thinks someone who can't even do three pull-ups is ready for combat is a certifiable moron.


----------



## Wacky Quacky

Antares said:


> Wacky Quacky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on guys, this issue has nothing to do with Obama or Democrats. This was the military, specifically the Marines, increasing standards. And if this doesn't pan out it won't be lowering standards, but simply returning them to what they were just a short while ago.
> 
> I'm torn on this one. While I have no issue with women serving in combat roles, and they should be held to higher physical standards than what they currently are. But women's bodies simply are not designed for pull ups, and pull ups are not the best test for combat readiness anyways.
> 
> Bring standards for women up to where men are for the run and the sit ups, and figure something else out for the pull ups.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many do you think can pull a 200 lb man out of a bad spot?
> 
> They don't belong in the trenches.
Click to expand...


That requires more core and leg strength than upper body strength.

And if that's what you're worried about then make that the new test instead of pull ups.


----------



## Antares

Wacky Quacky said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wacky Quacky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on guys, this issue has nothing to do with Obama or Democrats. This was the military, specifically the Marines, increasing standards. And if this doesn't pan out it won't be lowering standards, but simply returning them to what they were just a short while ago.
> 
> I'm torn on this one. While I have no issue with women serving in combat roles, and they should be held to higher physical standards than what they currently are. But women's bodies simply are not designed for pull ups, and pull ups are not the best test for combat readiness anyways.
> 
> Bring standards for women up to where men are for the run and the sit ups, and figure something else out for the pull ups.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many do you think can pull a 200 lb man out of a bad spot?
> 
> They don't belong in the trenches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That requires more core and leg strength than upper body strength.
> 
> And if that's what you're worried about then make that the new test instead of pull ups.
Click to expand...


Wacky you don't drag a man out, you carry him.


----------



## Wacky Quacky

candycorn said:


> Wacky Quacky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on guys, this issue has nothing to do with Obama or Democrats. This was the military, specifically the Marines, increasing standards. And if this doesn't pan out it won't be lowering standards, but simply returning them to what they were just a short while ago.
> 
> I'm torn on this one. While I have no issue with women serving in combat roles, and they should be held to higher physical standards than what they currently are. But women's bodies simply are not designed for pull ups, and pull ups are not the best test for combat readiness anyways.
> 
> Bring standards for women up to where men are for the run and the sit ups, and figure something else out for the pull ups.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's okay, they can pull voting levers just fine as 332-206 proves.
> Meanwhile Al Queda continues to master the monkey bars.
Click to expand...


What the hell does that have to do with anything I posted?


----------



## Antares

Wacky Quacky said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wacky Quacky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on guys, this issue has nothing to do with Obama or Democrats. This was the military, specifically the Marines, increasing standards. And if this doesn't pan out it won't be lowering standards, but simply returning them to what they were just a short while ago.
> 
> I'm torn on this one. While I have no issue with women serving in combat roles, and they should be held to higher physical standards than what they currently are. But women's bodies simply are not designed for pull ups, and pull ups are not the best test for combat readiness anyways.
> 
> Bring standards for women up to where men are for the run and the sit ups, and figure something else out for the pull ups.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's okay, they can pull voting levers just fine as 332-206 proves.
> Meanwhile Al Queda continues to master the monkey bars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell does that have to do with anything I posted?
Click to expand...


Nothing, she is woman, hear her roar.

She is simply trying to screw her way to whatever goal she has set.


----------



## Wacky Quacky

Antares said:


> Wacky Quacky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many do you think can pull a 200 lb man out of a bad spot?
> 
> They don't belong in the trenches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That requires more core and leg strength than upper body strength.
> 
> And if that's what you're worried about then make that the new test instead of pull ups.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wacky you don't drag a man out, you carry him.
Click to expand...


You do whatever gets that person to safety. When I was going through the crucible in boot camp one of the tests was to drag a person a certain distance.


----------



## candycorn

Wacky Quacky said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wacky Quacky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on guys, this issue has nothing to do with Obama or Democrats. This was the military, specifically the Marines, increasing standards. And if this doesn't pan out it won't be lowering standards, but simply returning them to what they were just a short while ago.
> 
> I'm torn on this one. While I have no issue with women serving in combat roles, and they should be held to higher physical standards than what they currently are. But women's bodies simply are not designed for pull ups, and pull ups are not the best test for combat readiness anyways.
> 
> Bring standards for women up to where men are for the run and the sit ups, and figure something else out for the pull ups.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's okay, they can pull voting levers just fine as 332-206 proves.
> Meanwhile Al Queda continues to master the monkey bars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell does that have to do with anything I posted?
Click to expand...


Admittedly nothing except electing a CIC who doesn't go around invading countries that did not invade us eliminates the need to do chin-ups in combat.


----------



## Antares

Wacky Quacky said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wacky Quacky said:
> 
> 
> 
> That requires more core and leg strength than upper body strength.
> 
> And if that's what you're worried about then make that the new test instead of pull ups.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wacky you don't drag a man out, you carry him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do whatever gets that person to safety. When I was going through the crucible in boot camp one of the tests was to drag a person a certain distance.
Click to expand...


You bet your life on them then, the rest of us will not.


----------



## bripat9643

Wacky Quacky said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wacky Quacky said:
> 
> 
> 
> That requires more core and leg strength than upper body strength.
> 
> And if that's what you're worried about then make that the new test instead of pull ups.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wacky you don't drag a man out, you carry him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do whatever gets that person to safety. When I was going through the crucible in boot camp one of the tests was to drag a person a certain distance.
Click to expand...


What makes you think a woman who can't do three pull-ups can drag a 200 lb. man 100 yards to safety?


----------



## 1776

Liberal scum have infiltrated the Pentagon and are trying to destroy the US military from within with their polices and budget cuts. They are doing the work of China and Russia from Washington DC right under the noses of the American public.

Gutting the military pay/benefits, weapon systems, etc. 
Openly gay people in the military to undermine morale and recruiting.
Blocking Christianity from the military.
Lowering fitness standards for women and letting them serve in combat roles. 
Etc....etc...etc.


----------



## candycorn

1776 said:


> Liberal scum have infiltrated the Pentagon and are trying to destroy the US military from within with their polices and budget cuts. They are doing the work of China and Russia from Washington DC right under the noses of the American public.
> 
> Gutting the military pay/benefits, weapon systems, etc.
> Openly gay people in the military to undermine morale and recruiting.
> Blocking Christianity from the military.
> Lowering fitness standards for women and letting them serve in combat roles.
> Etc....etc...etc.



You can almost hear Abe Simpson, can't you?





​


----------



## Wacky Quacky

candycorn said:


> Wacky Quacky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's okay, they can pull voting levers just fine as 332-206 proves.
> Meanwhile Al Queda continues to master the monkey bars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell does that have to do with anything I posted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Admittedly nothing except electing a CIC who doesn't go around invading countries that did not invade us eliminates the need to do chin-ups in combat.
Click to expand...


Which again has nothing to do with me, anything I have ever done, or anything in my post.


----------



## 1776

Kook....I don't follow your demented mind. 

Oh, but tell us your vast military experience compared to mine that goes 44 years. 



candycorn said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal scum have infiltrated the Pentagon and are trying to destroy the US military from within with their polices and budget cuts. They are doing the work of China and Russia from Washington DC right under the noses of the American public.
> 
> Gutting the military pay/benefits, weapon systems, etc.
> Openly gay people in the military to undermine morale and recruiting.
> Blocking Christianity from the military.
> Lowering fitness standards for women and letting them serve in combat roles.
> Etc....etc...etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can almost hear Abe Simpson, can't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
Click to expand...


----------



## candycorn

Wacky Quacky said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wacky Quacky said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell does that have to do with anything I posted?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admittedly nothing except electing a CIC who doesn't go around invading countries that did not invade us eliminates the need to do chin-ups in combat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which again has nothing to do with me, anything I have ever done, or anything in my post.
Click to expand...

As I admitted; again.


----------



## 1776

Again...the scum forcing these "changes" throughout the military never served and many times have spent their lives going after the DoD through law and policy over the years. 

They know letting a handful of flaming homos to flaunt their stuff in the military will drive down recruiting, which is the end goal...a small impotent military. 

Lowering fitness standards for women then sneaking them into the combat units again supports creating an impotent military.

To them an impotent military means less US power worldwide and somehow that means less wars worldwide too. Reality is that are making the world more dangerous. China, Iran, North Korea, Russia and the islamofascist nuts are watching and liking what they see....


----------



## SwimExpert

Antares said:


> Wacky you don't drag a man out, you carry him.



You obviously aren't a military man.


----------



## 1776

That is funny..."carry a man" out of the battlefield. 

Um, standing up and carrying someone is a bigger target than dragging them out. If someone has a spinal injury, you pull them by their jacket/shirt, one doesn't flip them over their shoulder and run off with them while diving from bullets. 



SwimExpert said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wacky you don't drag a man out, you carry him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously aren't a military man.
Click to expand...


----------



## bripat9643

SwimExpert said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wacky you don't drag a man out, you carry him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously aren't a military man.
Click to expand...


Obviously you aren't.


----------



## candycorn

1776 said:


> Kook....I don't follow your demented mind.
> 
> Oh, but tell us your vast military experience compared to mine that goes 44 years.
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal scum have infiltrated the Pentagon and are trying to destroy the US military from within with their polices and budget cuts. They are doing the work of China and Russia from Washington DC right under the noses of the American public.
> 
> Gutting the military pay/benefits, weapon systems, etc.
> Openly gay people in the military to undermine morale and recruiting.
> Blocking Christianity from the military.
> Lowering fitness standards for women and letting them serve in combat roles.
> Etc....etc...etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can almost hear Abe Simpson, can't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Positioning yourself outside of Pluto is good.....keep up the good work and thanks for your service.  I'm sure the battle of Vicksburg was tough.


----------



## 1776

Kook....you're a peon compared to me. 

Only an insane person or an idiot goes around with an Obama picture these days....are you insane, stupid, evil or all three?



candycorn said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kook....I don't follow your demented mind.
> 
> Oh, but tell us your vast military experience compared to mine that goes 44 years.
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can almost hear Abe Simpson, can't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Positioning yourself outside of Pluto is good.....keep up the good work and thanks for your service.  I'm sure the battle of Vicksburg was tough.
Click to expand...


----------



## candycorn

1776 said:


> That is funny..."carry a man" out of the battlefield.
> 
> Um, standing up and carrying someone is a bigger target than dragging them out. If someone has a spinal injury, you pull them by their jacket/shirt, one doesn't flip them over their shoulder and run off with them while diving from bullets.
> 
> 
> 
> SwimExpert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wacky you don't drag a man out, you carry him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously aren't a military man.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I'm curious...what rank did you top out at?


----------



## 1776

You guess twit....it'll keep you busy and means you will leave us alone. 



candycorn said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is funny..."carry a man" out of the battlefield.
> 
> Um, standing up and carrying someone is a bigger target than dragging them out. If someone has a spinal injury, you pull them by their jacket/shirt, one doesn't flip them over their shoulder and run off with them while diving from bullets.
> 
> 
> 
> SwimExpert said:
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously aren't a military man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm curious...what rank did you top out at?
Click to expand...


----------



## candycorn

1776 said:


> Kook....you're a peon compared to me.
> 
> Only an insane person or an idiot goes around with an Obama picture these days....are you insane, stupid, evil or all three?
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kook....I don't follow your demented mind.
> 
> Oh, but tell us your vast military experience compared to mine that goes 44 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Positioning yourself outside of Pluto is good.....keep up the good work and thanks for your service.  I'm sure the battle of Vicksburg was tough.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I'm just having fun; it's like talking to a child and listening to them talk about their day at recess. It's Friday before New Year's...


----------



## 1776

You're a pile of crap, nothing more. 



candycorn said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kook....you're a peon compared to me.
> 
> Only an insane person or an idiot goes around with an Obama picture these days....are you insane, stupid, evil or all three?
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Positioning yourself outside of Pluto is good.....keep up the good work and thanks for your service.  I'm sure the battle of Vicksburg was tough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm just having fun; it's like talking to a child and listening to them talk about their day at recess. It's Friday before New Year's...
Click to expand...


----------



## candycorn

1776 said:


> You guess twit....it'll keep you busy and means you will leave us alone.
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is funny..."carry a man" out of the battlefield.
> 
> Um, standing up and carrying someone is a bigger target than dragging them out. If someone has a spinal injury, you pull them by their jacket/shirt, one doesn't flip them over their shoulder and run off with them while diving from bullets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious...what rank did you top out at?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Aw, c'mon...tell us where you topped out at?  Corporal?


----------



## Iceman

I don't think there are enough women in the military, or lgbt. Discrimination against these groups exist and it is evident in the standards. These standards need to be lowered to account for bias in favor of men. Women can fight just as well in combat. There are no differences between the sexes in ability. Anyone that thinks here is is a sexist and bigot.


----------



## 1776

Are you on crack?



Iceman said:


> I don't think there are enough women in the military, or light. Discrimination against these groups exist and it is evident in the standards. These standards need to be lowered to account for biasnin favor of men. Women can fight just as well in combat. There are no differences between the sexes in ability. Anyone that thinks here is is a sexist and bigot.


----------



## candycorn

1776 said:


> You're a pile of crap, nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kook....you're a peon compared to me.
> 
> Only an insane person or an idiot goes around with an Obama picture these days....are you insane, stupid, evil or all three?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just having fun; it's like talking to a child and listening to them talk about their day at recess. It's Friday before New Year's...
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You sound like a child, I'm treating you like one.


----------



## 1776

We get it...you have a pathetic life and you come here trying to make others feel like you.

Go find a bus to run you over. 



candycorn said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a pile of crap, nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just having fun; it's like talking to a child and listening to them talk about their day at recess. It's Friday before New Year's...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sound like a child, I'm treating you like one.
Click to expand...


----------



## Daktoria

[MENTION=5176]RetiredGySgt[/MENTION]



RetiredGySgt said:


> Ahh a Jew hater, that explains a lot.



You might hate Jews, but I don't.  I just hate what Jews believe in.


----------



## Iceman

1776 said:


> Are you on crack?
> 
> 
> 
> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think there are enough women in the military, or lgbt. Discrimination against these groups exist and it is evident in the standards. These standards need to be lowered to account for bias in favor of men. Women can fight just as well in combat. There are no differences between the sexes in ability. Anyone that thinks here is is a sexist and bigot.
Click to expand...


You sound like an antiquated bigot that belongs in 1776! Lol


----------



## Daktoria

[MENTION=20204]Kondor3[/MENTION]



Kondor3 said:


> Yeah... I was pretty sure that that was where 'it' was going but I wanted 'it' to condemn 'itself' on its own, without any help. Mission accomplished. Next Jew-hating troll, please.



Jewish beliefs are hateful.  Why should we tolerate them?


----------



## candycorn

1776 said:


> We get it...you have a pathetic life and you come here trying to make others feel like you.
> 
> Go find a bus to run you over.
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a pile of crap, nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like a child, I'm treating you like one.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


After 44 years in the military, I'd think you wouldn't be such a pussy.


----------



## Iceman

Daktoria said:


> [MENTION=5176]RetiredGySgt[/MENTION]
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh a Jew hater, that explains a lot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might hate Jews, but I don't.  I just hate what Jews believe in.
Click to expand...


Jews have no power or influence in America. And if you say they do in public and not behind a keyboard anonymously you would  get in trouble.


----------



## 1776

Yeah, you're a crackhead.

So women are equal to men in strength??? So when are they going to be forced to do as many push-ups, sit-ups and run the 1.5-3 mile run in equal time as men???

Well, hell the Olympics has it all wrong too having men and women categories....trailer trash like you knows "da troof."



Iceman said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you on crack?
> 
> 
> 
> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think there are enough women in the military, or lgbt. Discrimination against these groups exist and it is evident in the standards. These standards need to be lowered to account for bias in favor of men. Women can fight just as well in combat. There are no differences between the sexes in ability. Anyone that thinks here is is a sexist and bigot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sound like an antiquated bigot that belongs in 1776! Lol
Click to expand...


----------



## 1776

You're a fucking idiot...I didn't do 44 years in the military. 



candycorn said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We get it...you have a pathetic life and you come here trying to make others feel like you.
> 
> Go find a bus to run you over.
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like a child, I'm treating you like one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After 44 years in the military, I'd think you wouldn't be such a pussy.
Click to expand...


----------



## Iceman

1776 said:


> Yeah, you're a crackhead.
> 
> So women are equal to men in strength??? So when are they going to be forced to do as many push-ups, sit-ups and run the 1.5-3 mile run in equal time as men???
> 
> Well, hell the Olympics has it all wrong too having men and women categories....trailer trash like you knows "da troof."
> 
> 
> 
> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you on crack?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like an antiquated bigot that belongs in 1776! Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Youre the trailer trash. Only  tea party racist would suggest there are differences between the sexes. Those of us who went to public school and watch the msm know better. As we are enlightened progressive forward thinkers


----------



## candycorn

Iceman said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you on crack?
> 
> 
> 
> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think there are enough women in the military, or lgbt. Discrimination against these groups exist and it is evident in the standards. These standards need to be lowered to account for bias in favor of men. Women can fight just as well in combat. There are no differences between the sexes in ability. Anyone that thinks here is is a sexist and bigot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sound like an antiquated bigot that belongs in 1776! Lol
Click to expand...


As with most conservatives, the nation has evolved and they have not.  So they feel hopelessly scared and lost and all they can do is lash out at who they were told to blame.


----------



## Daktoria

bripat9643 said:


> If you're having an operation on your heart, do you want a surgeon who got 'A's in medical school, or do you want someone who couldn't pass the course?  Is expecting a surgeon to be useful in a heart bypass operation "intolerant?"
> 
> If you look up the definition of "liberal moron" in the dictionary, you'll find your picture there.



  [MENTION=29100]bripat9643[/MENTION]

If I live my life, I don't want to live a life where I need to get an operation on my heart in the first place.

For example, I'm not one of those fatty couch potatoes who watches TV all day like the media depends on.

Like I said, useful is subjective.  For a conservative who opposes universal health care, I'd hope you'd get that without explanation.


----------



## 1776

Sure dumbfuck....oh, I'm not part of the Tea Party. I opposed their shutdown bullshit.

Try again, Cleatus. 



Iceman said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you're a crackhead.
> 
> So women are equal to men in strength??? So when are they going to be forced to do as many push-ups, sit-ups and run the 1.5-3 mile run in equal time as men???
> 
> Well, hell the Olympics has it all wrong too having men and women categories....trailer trash like you knows "da troof."
> 
> 
> 
> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like an antiquated bigot that belongs in 1776! Lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Youre the trailer trash. Only  tea party racist would suggest there are differences between the sexes. Those of us who went to public school and watch the mms know better. As we are enlightened progressive forward thinkers
Click to expand...


----------



## Wacky Quacky

1776 said:


> Again...the scum forcing these "changes" throughout the military never served and many times have spent their lives going after the DoD through law and policy over the years.
> 
> They know letting a handful of flaming homos to flaunt their stuff in the military will drive down recruiting, which is the end goal...a small impotent military.
> 
> Lowering fitness standards for women then sneaking them into the combat units again supports creating an impotent military.
> 
> To them an impotent military means less US power worldwide and somehow that means less wars worldwide too. Reality is that are making the world more dangerous. China, Iran, North Korea, Russia and the islamofascist nuts are watching and liking what they see....



This is being implemented by the Marines, not Democrats or anyone else in Washington. 

And it's not lowering the standards, it's returning them to where they were just a short while ago because the new increased standards weren't working.


----------



## bripat9643

Daktoria said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're having an operation on your heart, do you want a surgeon who got 'A's in medical school, or do you want someone who couldn't pass the course?  Is expecting a surgeon to be useful in a heart bypass operation "intolerant?"
> 
> If you look up the definition of "liberal moron" in the dictionary, you'll find your picture there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=29100]bripat9643[/MENTION]
> 
> If I live my life, I don't want to live a life where I need to get an operation on my heart in the first place.
> 
> For example, I'm not one of those fatty couch potatoes who watches TV all day like the media depends on.
> 
> Like I said, useful is subjective.
Click to expand...


You're weaseling around the question.

Do you want a doctor who couldn't pass medical school?


----------



## candycorn

1776 said:


> You're a fucking idiot...I didn't do 44 years in the military.
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We get it...you have a pathetic life and you come here trying to make others feel like you.
> 
> Go find a bus to run you over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After 44 years in the military, I'd think you wouldn't be such a pussy.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Hmmm....


1776 said:


> Kook....I don't follow your demented mind.
> Oh, but tell us your vast military experience compared to *mine that goes 44 years*.



I'll make you a deal; if you ask nicely I'll buy you a mirror so you can debate yourself.





​


----------



## Kondor3

Daktoria said:


> [MENTION=20204]Kondor3[/MENTION]
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah... I was pretty sure that that was where 'it' was going but I wanted 'it' to condemn 'itself' on its own, without any help. Mission accomplished. Next Jew-hating troll, please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jewish beliefs are hateful.  Why should we tolerate them?
Click to expand...

Anybody got any Lysol spray?


----------



## Iceman

1776 said:


> Sure dumbfuck....oh, I'm not part of the Tea Party. I opposed their shutdown bullshit.
> 
> Try again, Cleatus.
> 
> 
> 
> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you're a crackhead.
> 
> So women are equal to men in strength??? So when are they going to be forced to do as many push-ups, sit-ups and run the 1.5-3 mile run in equal time as men???
> 
> Well, hell the Olympics has it all wrong too having men and women categories....trailer trash like you knows "da troof."
> 
> 
> 
> Youre the trailer trash. Only  tea party racist would suggest there are differences between the sexes. Those of us who went to public school and watch the msm know better. As we are enlightened progressive forward thinkers
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Doesn't matter you are still a republican bigot. Tea party or not you republicans aid and abet the tea baggers. You are racist sexist anti gay and will never win another election.


----------



## SwimExpert

bripat9643 said:


> SwimExpert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wacky you don't drag a man out, you carry him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously aren't a military man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously you aren't.
Click to expand...


Combat medic.  I happen to know a thing or two about this.


----------



## Wacky Quacky

Iceman said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you're a crackhead.
> 
> So women are equal to men in strength??? So when are they going to be forced to do as many push-ups, sit-ups and run the 1.5-3 mile run in equal time as men???
> 
> Well, hell the Olympics has it all wrong too having men and women categories....trailer trash like you knows "da troof."
> 
> 
> 
> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like an antiquated bigot that belongs in 1776! Lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Youre the trailer trash. Only  tea party racist would suggest there are differences between the sexes. Those of us who went to public school and watch the msm know better. As we are enlightened progressive forward thinkers
Click to expand...


And only someone very ignorant would suggest there is no difference in physical ability between men and women.

However, I don't believe it's enough of a difference to keep them out of combat roles.


----------



## 1776

Yeah....you are that fucking stupid. 

44 years = 22 years under my father's military career + 22 years for me. 

Yeah, you are that stupid and pathetic. 

Again, find a bus with your name on the bumper....



candycorn said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a fucking idiot...I didn't do 44 years in the military.
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> After 44 years in the military, I'd think you wouldn't be such a pussy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm....
> 
> 
> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kook....I don't follow your demented mind.
> Oh, but tell us your vast military experience compared to *mine that goes 44 years*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll make you a deal; if you ask nicely I'll buy you a mirror so you can debate yourself.
> 
> http://i.qkme.me/3q58ii.jpg:lol:​
Click to expand...


----------



## bripat9643

Iceman said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure dumbfuck....oh, I'm not part of the Tea Party. I opposed their shutdown bullshit.
> 
> Try again, Cleatus.
> 
> 
> 
> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youre the trailer trash. Only  tea party racist would suggest there are differences between the sexes. Those of us who went to public school and watch the msm know better. As we are enlightened progressive forward thinkers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter you are still a republican bigot. Tea party or not you republicans aid and abet the tea baggers. You are racist sexist anti gay and will never win another election.
Click to expand...


There's nothing racist or bigoted about the TEA party, asshole.  

I certainly do aid and abet the TEA party.  I even send them money.


----------



## 1776

So shitstain...you want Obama to make women pass the men's fitness tests in the military....and when they fail the tests 2-3 times in a row, we can kick them out????

We can do that.



Iceman said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure dumbfuck....oh, I'm not part of the Tea Party. I opposed their shutdown bullshit.
> 
> Try again, Cleatus.
> 
> 
> 
> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youre the trailer trash. Only  tea party racist would suggest there are differences between the sexes. Those of us who went to public school and watch the msm know better. As we are enlightened progressive forward thinkers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter you are still a republican bigot. Tea party or not you republicans aid and abet the tea baggers. You are racist sexist anti gay and will never win another election.
Click to expand...


----------



## Iceman

bripat9643 said:


> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure dumbfuck....oh, I'm not part of the Tea Party. I opposed their shutdown bullshit.
> 
> Try again, Cleatus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter you are still a republican bigot. Tea party or not you republicans aid and abet the tea baggers. You are racist sexist anti gay and will never win another election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's nothing racist or bigoted about the TEA party, asshole.
> 
> I certainly do aid and abet the TEA party.  I even send them money.
Click to expand...

 why don't you just have your own country and leave us alone. I dare you to try and secede again. WE will beat you tea bag racists again


----------



## bripat9643

Iceman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter you are still a republican bigot. Tea party or not you republicans aid and abet the tea baggers. You are racist sexist anti gay and will never win another election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing racist or bigoted about the TEA party, asshole.
> 
> I certainly do aid and abet the TEA party.  I even send them money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why don't you just have your own country and leave us alone. I dare you to try and secede again. WE will beat you tea bag racists again
Click to expand...


Sorry, asshole, you're stuck with us.  Democracy sure sucks sometimes, doesn't it?

Why would you "beat us" and prevent us from seceding if you want to be left alone?


----------



## 1776

So says the piece of shit that never did shit for this country. 

You're a leach on this country.



Iceman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter you are still a republican bigot. Tea party or not you republicans aid and abet the tea baggers. You are racist sexist anti gay and will never win another election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing racist or bigoted about the TEA party, asshole.
> 
> I certainly do aid and abet the TEA party.  I even send them money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why don't you just have your own country and leave us alone. I dare you to try and secede again. WE will beat you tea bag racists again
Click to expand...


----------



## Iceman

1776 said:


> So shitstain...you want Obama to make women pass the men's fitness tests in the military....and when they fail the tests 2-3 times in a row, we can kick them out????
> 
> We can do that.
> 
> 
> 
> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure dumbfuck....oh, I'm not part of the Tea Party. I opposed their shutdown bullshit.
> 
> Try again, Cleatus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter you are still a republican bigot. Tea party or not you republicans aid and abet the tea baggers. You are racist sexist anti gay and will never win another election.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Spots should be made available to women lgbt and racial minorities first not racist white tea bag bigots to account for discrimination. Any test that doesn't have equal results is obviously biased and hateful and shouldn't be used


----------



## Iceman

bripat9643 said:


> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing racist or bigoted about the TEA party, asshole.
> 
> I certainly do aid and abet the TEA party.  I even send them money.
> 
> 
> 
> why don't you just have your own country and leave us alone. I dare you to try and secede again. WE will beat you tea bag racists again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, asshole, you're stuck with us.  Democracy sure sucks sometimes, doesn't it?
Click to expand...


Only sucks for you you keep losing lol. You hate democracy though that's for sure


----------



## 1776

I believe you are either a mental ward patient that somehow got internet access from the rubber room, or you are some demented psych experiment by a student, from a university like one of the 3 I graduated from, trying to post stupid shit to get a response on the internet. 



Iceman said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So shitstain...you want Obama to make women pass the men's fitness tests in the military....and when they fail the tests 2-3 times in a row, we can kick them out????
> 
> We can do that.
> 
> 
> 
> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter you are still a republican bigot. Tea party or not you republicans aid and abet the tea baggers. You are racist sexist anti gay and will never win another election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spots should be made available to women lgbt and racial minorities first not racist white tea bag bigots to account for discrimination. Any test that doesn't have equal results is obviously biased and hateful and shouldn't be used
Click to expand...


----------



## Iceman

1776 said:


> I believe you are either a mental ward patient that somehow got internet access from the rubber room, or you are some demented psych experiment by a student, from a university like one of the 3 I graduated from, trying to post stupid shit to get a response on the internet.
> 
> 
> 
> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So shitstain...you want Obama to make women pass the men's fitness tests in the military....and when they fail the tests 2-3 times in a row, we can kick them out????
> 
> We can do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spots should be made available to women lgbt and racial minorities first not racist white tea bag bigots to account for discrimination. Any test that doesn't have equal results is obviously biased and hateful and shouldn't be used
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

 that would be you bigot


----------



## bripat9643

1776 said:


> I believe you are either a mental ward patient that somehow got internet access from the rubber room, or you are some demented psych experiment by a student, from a university like one of the 3 I graduated from, trying to post stupid shit to get a response on the internet.
> 
> 
> 
> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So shitstain...you want Obama to make women pass the men's fitness tests in the military....and when they fail the tests 2-3 times in a row, we can kick them out????
> 
> We can do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spots should be made available to women lgbt and racial minorities first not racist white tea bag bigots to account for discrimination. Any test that doesn't have equal results is obviously biased and hateful and shouldn't be used
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


He does seem to be one of the especially stupid members of this forum, and he has some stiff competition!


----------



## 1776

Ok, mental ward kook.




Iceman said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you are either a mental ward patient that somehow got internet access from the rubber room, or you are some demented psych experiment by a student, from a university like one of the 3 I graduated from, trying to post stupid shit to get a response on the internet.
> 
> 
> 
> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spots should be made available to women lgbt and racial minorities first not racist white tea bag bigots to account for discrimination. Any test that doesn't have equal results is obviously biased and hateful and shouldn't be used
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that would be you bigot
Click to expand...


----------



## Iceman

The people united will never be defeated! Viva la raza gay pride I am a woman here me roar


----------



## Wacky Quacky

Iceman said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So shitstain...you want Obama to make women pass the men's fitness tests in the military....and when they fail the tests 2-3 times in a row, we can kick them out????
> 
> We can do that.
> 
> 
> 
> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter you are still a republican bigot. Tea party or not you republicans aid and abet the tea baggers. You are racist sexist anti gay and will never win another election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spots should be made available to women lgbt and racial minorities first not racist white tea bag bigots to account for discrimination. Any test that doesn't have equal results is obviously biased and hateful and shouldn't be used
Click to expand...


That is a very idiotic statement.

First, this our military we're talking about, not just some job. These are the people who put their life on the line protecting us. The spots go to whoever can pass the test, period. Affirmative action in the military would result in people getting killed.

Also, the context of the test is a major factor in determining if it's fair or not. You cannot look at just the results. A three mile run isn't discriminatory towards any group. Hypothetical, if a math test is failed by one race more than another, is it a racist math test?


----------



## bripat9643

Iceman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> why don't you just have your own country and leave us alone. I dare you to try and secede again. WE will beat you tea bag racists again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, asshole, you're stuck with us.  Democracy sure sucks sometimes, doesn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only sucks for you you keep losing lol. You hate democracy though that's for sure
Click to expand...


You just said you wish we would have our own country and leave you alone.  Democracy is the rule that says we get to stay here and stop you from looting people who are doing better in life than you.  That sucks for all the losers like you, doesn't it?

You're right, I do despise democracy.  It's the system that allows morons like you to have a say in running my life.


----------



## Iceman

Wacky Quacky said:


> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So shitstain...you want Obama to make women pass the men's fitness tests in the military....and when they fail the tests 2-3 times in a row, we can kick them out????
> 
> We can do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spots should be made available to women lgbt and racial minorities first not racist white tea bag bigots to account for discrimination. Any test that doesn't have equal results is obviously biased and hateful and shouldn't be used
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a very idiotic statement.
> 
> First, this our military we're talking about, not just some job. These are the people who put their life on the line protecting us. The spots go to whoever can pass the test, period. Affirmative action in the military would result in people getting killed.
> 
> Also, the context of the test is a major factor in determining if it's fair or not. You cannot look at just the results. A three mile run isn't discriminatory towards any group. Hypothetical, if a math test is failed by one race more than another, is it a racist math test?
Click to expand...


Are you saying races and genders have different abilities?


----------



## 1776

Yep....you're a moron on drugs.



Iceman said:


> The people united will never be defeated! Viva la raza gay pride I am a woman here me roar


----------



## bripat9643

Wacky Quacky said:


> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So shitstain...you want Obama to make women pass the men's fitness tests in the military....and when they fail the tests 2-3 times in a row, we can kick them out????
> 
> We can do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spots should be made available to women lgbt and racial minorities first not racist white tea bag bigots to account for discrimination. Any test that doesn't have equal results is obviously biased and hateful and shouldn't be used
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a very idiotic statement.
> 
> First, this our military we're talking about, not just some job. These are the people who put their life on the line protecting us. The spots go to whoever can pass the test, period. Affirmative action in the military would result in people getting killed.
> 
> Also, the context of the test is a major factor in determining if it's fair or not. You cannot look at just the results. A three mile run isn't discriminatory towards any group. Hypothetical, if a math test is failed by one race more than another, is it a racist math test?
Click to expand...


I can't believe this guy is serious.  No one could be that stupid, aside from Fakey, that is.


----------



## Daktoria

Iceman said:


> Daktoria said:
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=5176]RetiredGySgt[/MENTION]
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh a Jew hater, that explains a lot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might hate Jews, but I don't.  I just hate what Jews believe in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jews have no power or influence in America. And if you say they do in public and not behind a keyboard anonymously you would  get in trouble.
Click to expand...

 [MENTION=45921]Iceman[/MENTION]

Well I'll agree with you about "no power".  The Jewish belief system tolerates hiding behind plausible deniability such that abusers can get away with abuse as long as there's no evidence of wrong doing.


----------



## bripat9643

Daktoria said:


> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daktoria said:
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=5176]RetiredGySgt[/MENTION]
> 
> 
> 
> You might hate Jews, but I don't.  I just hate what Jews believe in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jews have no power or influence in America. And if you say they do in public and not behind a keyboard anonymously you would  get in trouble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> [MENTION=45921]Iceman[/MENTION]
> 
> Well I'll agree with you about "no power".  The Jewish belief system tolerates hiding behind plausible deniability such that abusers can get away with abuse as long as there's no evidence of wrong doing.
Click to expand...


You've discredited yourself as an obvious bigot and anti-Semite.  No one is paying attention.


----------



## candycorn

1776 said:


> Yeah....you are that fucking stupid.
> 
> 44 years = 22 years under my father's military career + 22 years for me.
> 
> Yeah, you are that stupid and pathetic.
> 
> Again, find a bus with your name on the bumper....
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a fucking idiot...I didn't do 44 years in the military.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm....
> 
> 
> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kook....I don't follow your demented mind.
> Oh, but tell us your vast military experience compared to *mine that goes 44 years*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll make you a deal; if you ask nicely I'll buy you a mirror so you can debate yourself.
> 
> http://i.qkme.me/3q58ii.jpg:lol:​
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


So Hillary had 8 years as President since she was First Lady using your "logic" there Cooter.  

So now you have 22 years in the military (allegedly).  Sounds as if you still shouldn't be as sissified as you are.  C'mon...tell us where you topped out...General?


----------



## 1776

icedman and crackcorn need to breed to show the world what the dumbest human would look like.


----------



## Daktoria

bripat9643 said:


> You've discredited yourself as an obvious bigot and anti-Semite.  No one is paying attention.



 [MENTION=29100]bripat9643[/MENTION]

Analyzing someone's belief system is bigoted?  

I mean if you want to refer to anti-intellectual society not paying attention, fine, but why would anyone want anti-intellectual society's attention anyway?

Are you saying Jewish beliefs are used to evoke mob justice from idiocracy?


----------



## Iceman

bripat9643 said:


> Wacky Quacky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spots should be made available to women lgbt and racial minorities first not racist white tea bag bigots to account for discrimination. Any test that doesn't have equal results is obviously biased and hateful and shouldn't be used
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a very idiotic statement.
> 
> First, this our military we're talking about, not just some job. These are the people who put their life on the line protecting us. The spots go to whoever can pass the test, period. Affirmative action in the military would result in people getting killed.
> 
> Also, the context of the test is a major factor in determining if it's fair or not. You cannot look at just the results. A three mile run isn't discriminatory towards any group. Hypothetical, if a math test is failed by one race more than another, is it a racist math test?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> P
> I can't believe this guy is serious.  No one could be that stupid, aside from Fakey, that is.
Click to expand...

Lol. More people than you think unfortunately. I may have been joking but those views aren't a joke to many


----------



## candycorn

bripat9643 said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you are either a mental ward patient that somehow got internet access from the rubber room, or you are some demented psych experiment by a student, from a university like one of the 3 I graduated from, trying to post stupid shit to get a response on the internet.
> 
> 
> 
> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spots should be made available to women lgbt and racial minorities first not racist white tea bag bigots to account for discrimination. Any test that doesn't have equal results is obviously biased and hateful and shouldn't be used
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He does seem to be one of the especially stupid members of this forum, and he has some stiff competition!
Click to expand...


He's playing with you all's dumb ass


----------



## Wacky Quacky

Iceman said:


> Wacky Quacky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spots should be made available to women lgbt and racial minorities first not racist white tea bag bigots to account for discrimination. Any test that doesn't have equal results is obviously biased and hateful and shouldn't be used
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a very idiotic statement.
> 
> First, this our military we're talking about, not just some job. These are the people who put their life on the line protecting us. The spots go to whoever can pass the test, period. Affirmative action in the military would result in people getting killed.
> 
> Also, the context of the test is a major factor in determining if it's fair or not. You cannot look at just the results. A three mile run isn't discriminatory towards any group. Hypothetical, if a math test is failed by one race more than another, is it a racist math test?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying races and genders have different abilities?
Click to expand...


How you could get that from my post I will never know. Seriously, am I talking in a different language that's causing people to post drivel in response to everything I say?

Gender is the only exception. Physically, men and women have different abilities. That is not sexism, that is scientific fact. Men's bodies have more testosterone which make them naturally stronger. But, like I posted earlier, I don't think it's enough of a difference to keep women out of combat roles.

Back to your comment on test results, I would like to hear you answer my question. If a math test is failed by one race more than another, is it a racist math test?


----------



## ShootSpeeders

Just another form of affirmative action.  Can any of you hateful liberals justify this?



> Female Marines Not Required To Do 1 Pull-Up | CNS News
> 
> December 27, 2013 - 2:02 PM
> 
> (CNSNews.com) -- Females in the Marine Corps currently are not required to do pull-ups as part of their physical training, and a deadline mandating that they do at least 3 pull-ups by Jan. 1, 2014 as part of their  training has been delayed for at least a year, the Corps quietly announced on social media.
> 
> Unlike their female counterparts, male Marines have long been required to do at least 3 pullups as part of the Physical Fitness Test (PFT). That's the minimum requirement for males.
> 
> Female Marines are required, however, to do a flexed-arm hang from a bar, and their PFT score is calculated based upon how long they can properly hang on the bar.  (See video for pull-ups and flexed-arm hang demonstrations.)
> 
> Currently, women arent able to make the minimum standard of three pull-ups, Marine spokesman Capt. Eric Flanagan told CNSNews.com. Fifty-five percent of female recruits tested at the end of boot camp were unable to do three pull-ups (1 percent of male recruits also failed).
> 
> Marine officers told NPR off-the-record that, given the three-pull-ups rule,  they were afraid of losing not only new recruits, but also current female Marines who cant pass the test.


----------



## Iceman

Wacky Quacky said:


> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wacky Quacky said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a very idiotic statement.
> 
> First, this our military we're talking about, not just some job. These are the people who put their life on the line protecting us. The spots go to whoever can pass the test, period. Affirmative action in the military would result in people getting killed.
> 
> Also, the context of the test is a major factor in determining if it's fair or not. You cannot look at just the results. A three mile run isn't discriminatory towards any group. Hypothetical, if a math test is failed by one race more than another, is it a racist math test?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying races and genders have different abilities?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How you could get that from my post I will never know. Seriously, am I talking in a different language that's causing people to post drivel in response to everything I say?
> 
> Gender is the only exception. Physically, men and women have different abilities. That is not sexism, that is scientific fact. Men's bodies have more testosterone which make them naturally stronger. But, like I posted earlier, I don't think it's enough of a difference to keep women out of combat roles.
> 
> Back to your comment on test results, I would like to hear you answer my question. If a math test is failed by one race more than another, is it a racist math test?
Click to expand...


Ok so genders have different abilities. Are you implying a race is better than another at math?


----------



## Mad_Cabbie

Women aren't as good as doing pull-ups as men.

What's your point?


----------



## jgarden

> Absence of America's Upper Classes From the Military
> 
> - thanks to Sen. John McCain's youngest son checking into Marine Corps boot camp, the number of Congress members with enlisted children will skyrocket a whopping 50 percent.
> 
> - about 1 percent of U.S. representatives and senators have a child in uniform. And the Capitol building is no different from other places where the leadership class in this country gathers -- no different from the boardrooms, newsrooms, ivory towers and penthouses of our nation.
> 
> - less than 1 percent of today's graduates from Ivy League schools go on to serve in the military
> 
> - those who opine, argue, publish, fund and decide courses of action for our country rarely see members of their families doing the deeds our leaders would send the nation's young adults to do,
> 
> - when the deciders are disconnected from the doers, self-government can't work as it should.
> 
> - a review of U.S. foreign policy over nearly two centuries shows that when we have the fewest number of veterans in leadership and staff positions in Congress and the executive branch
> 
> - eminent military sociologist Charles Moskos shows that people living in a democracy are not willing to sustain military engagements over time if those in the leadership class do not serve in the armed forces. When they don't serve, they send a signal that the conflict is not vital or worthwhile.
> 
> - the Triangle Institute of Security Studies has tracked the growing disconnect between the military and the leadership class, and it finds evidence of a growing distrust of both groups toward one another. The group in America that reports having the lowest opinion of the military is the elites: The elites are almost six times more likely than those in the military to say they would be "disappointed if a child of mine decided to serve."
> 
> - in World War I, one of Congress's stated reasons for proposing a draft was that without it, too many of the upper-class children would rush to service, and we'd lose the leadership class of the country. In 1956, a majority of the graduating classes of Stanford, Harvard and Princeton joined the military, and most were not drafted.
> 
> Absence of America's Upper Classes From the Military - ABC News


*Marines: Most Female Recruits Don't Meet New Pullup Standard

The American military has far larger problems to face than the number of number of "pullups" that its female recruits can perform.

At least these women have demonstrated a willingness to serve their country - which is far more than can be said about the sons and daughters of the elites who currently sit in Congress, the executive branch, the judiciary and the boardrooms of the nation!*


----------



## whitehall

How do female Marines benefit the mission of the Marine Corps? Let's face it people, there are only so many jobs that females are suited for in the Marines. The benevolent caring libs thought they were doing girls a favor by forcing them into combat roles but it only hampers the mission when combat troops have to  take up the slack when the DNA says that girls do not have the God given physical strength to do the job.


----------



## ShootSpeeders

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Women aren't as good as doing pull-ups as men.
> 
> What's your point?




Do you enjoy being the board laughingstock?


----------



## Mad_Cabbie

ShootSpeeders said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Women aren't as good as doing pull-ups as men.
> 
> What's your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you enjoy being the board laughingstock?
Click to expand...



Do you have something to say with regards to your OWN thread or was it not actually up for debate?

You posted a cut and paste with no comment on the matter other than some crap about liberals - was seeking to understand your stance on the issue.



Tell you what, never mind! 

Bye!


P.S. 

This thread needs a mercy bump - bad.


----------



## Pogo

ShootSpeeders said:


> Just another form of affirmative action.  Can any of you hateful liberals justify this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Female Marines Not Required To Do 1 Pull-Up | CNS News
> 
> December 27, 2013 - 2:02 PM
> 
> (CNSNews.com) -- Females in the Marine Corps currently are not required to do pull-ups as part of their physical training, and a deadline mandating that they do at least 3 pull-ups by Jan. 1, 2014 as part of their  training has been delayed for at least a year, the Corps quietly announced on social media.
> 
> Unlike their female counterparts, male Marines have long been required to do at least 3 pullups as part of the Physical Fitness Test (PFT). That's the minimum requirement for males.
> 
> Female Marines are required, however, to do a flexed-arm hang from a bar, and their PFT score is calculated based upon how long they can properly hang on the bar.  (See video for pull-ups and flexed-arm hang demonstrations.)
> 
> Currently, women arent able to make the minimum standard of three pull-ups, Marine spokesman Capt. Eric Flanagan told CNSNews.com. Fifty-five percent of female recruits tested at the end of boot camp were unable to do three pull-ups (1 percent of male recruits also failed).
> 
> Marine officers told NPR off-the-record that, given the three-pull-ups rule,  they were afraid of losing not only new recruits, but also current female Marines who cant pass the test.
Click to expand...


What the fuck does this have to do with "Liberals"?

You daft, bro?


----------



## Mad_Cabbie

Pogo said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just another form of affirmative action.  Can any of you hateful liberals justify this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Female Marines Not Required To Do 1 Pull-Up | CNS News
> 
> December 27, 2013 - 2:02 PM
> 
> (CNSNews.com) -- Females in the Marine Corps currently are not required to do pull-ups as part of their physical training, and a deadline mandating that they do at least 3 pull-ups by Jan. 1, 2014 as part of their  training has been delayed for at least a year, the Corps quietly announced on social media.
> 
> Unlike their female counterparts, male Marines have long been required to do at least 3 pullups as part of the Physical Fitness Test (PFT). That's the minimum requirement for males.
> 
> Female Marines are required, however, to do a flexed-arm hang from a bar, and their PFT score is calculated based upon how long they can properly hang on the bar.  (See video for pull-ups and flexed-arm hang demonstrations.)
> 
> Currently, women arent able to make the minimum standard of three pull-ups, Marine spokesman Capt. Eric Flanagan told CNSNews.com. Fifty-five percent of female recruits tested at the end of boot camp were unable to do three pull-ups (1 percent of male recruits also failed).
> 
> Marine officers told NPR off-the-record that, given the three-pull-ups rule,  they were afraid of losing not only new recruits, but also current female Marines who cant pass the test.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the fuck does this have to do with "Liberals"?
> 
> You daft, bro?
Click to expand...


You guys did this ... you hate America and PROVE it by allowing women in the corps.


----------



## Vikrant

&#8220;Albert Cashier&#8221; served three years in the Union Army and passed successfully as a man until 1911 when the aging veteran was revealed to be a woman named Jennie Hodgers. Frances Clayton kept fighting even after her husband was gunned down in front of her at the Battle of Murfreesboro. And more than one soldier astonished &#8220;his&#8221; comrades-in-arms by giving birth in camp.

This lively and authoritative book opens a hitherto neglected chapter of Civil War history, telling the stories of hundreds of women who adopted male disguise and fought as soldiers. It explores their reasons for enlisting; their experiences in combat, and the way they were seen by their fellow soldiers and the American public. Impeccably researched and narrated with verve and wit, They Fought Like Demons is a major addition to our understanding of the Civil War era.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/They-Fought-Like-Demons-Soldiers/dp/1400033152]They Fought Like Demons: Women Soldiers in the Civil War: De Anne Blanton, Lauren M. Cook: 9781400033157: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]


----------



## LeadRoundNose

Not too sure if giving birth while in a war zone camp really helps the argument for women on the battlefield.


----------



## HenryBHough

Under Regime Obama Marines only function is to hold umbrellas over the heads of foreign dictators.  I can't see that any "pull-up" requirement is at all germane.  At least not for the time being.


----------



## Wacky Quacky

Iceman said:


> Wacky Quacky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying races and genders have different abilities?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How you could get that from my post I will never know. Seriously, am I talking in a different language that's causing people to post drivel in response to everything I say?
> 
> Gender is the only exception. Physically, men and women have different abilities. That is not sexism, that is scientific fact. Men's bodies have more testosterone which make them naturally stronger. But, like I posted earlier, I don't think it's enough of a difference to keep women out of combat roles.
> 
> Back to your comment on test results, I would like to hear you answer my question. If a math test is failed by one race more than another, is it a racist math test?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok so genders have different abilities. Are you implying a race is better than another at math?
Click to expand...




It's a question. You're supposed to think about it and answer it.


----------



## Iceman

Wacky Quacky said:


> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wacky Quacky said:
> 
> 
> 
> How you could get that from my post I will never know. Seriously, am I talking in a different language that's causing people to post drivel in response to everything I say?
> 
> Gender is the only exception. Physically, men and women have different abilities. That is not sexism, that is scientific fact. Men's bodies have more testosterone which make them naturally stronger. But, like I posted earlier, I don't think it's enough of a difference to keep women out of combat roles.
> 
> Back to your comment on test results, I would like to hear you answer my question. If a math test is failed by one race more than another, is it a racist math test?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok so genders have different abilities. Are you implying a race is better than another at math?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a question. You're supposed to think about it and answer it.
Click to expand...


Obviously some races have higher levels of intelligence than others, duh. 


"Racist" is a term coined by Jewish communist Leon Trotsky used to attack Ukranians who didn't want to be part of the USSR in the 30s. It is a meaningless term in of itself.


----------



## candycorn

1776 said:


> icedman and crackcorn need to breed to show the world what the dumbest human would look like.



Or you can post a picture of yourself and erase all suspense.  It'd be fun betting on how few teeth you have.


----------



## editec

bripat9643 said:


> Watch the military lower the standards for women.  You know they'r egoing to do it to avoid the wrath of MOOCHelle and the rest of the feminists.
> 
> Marines: Most Female Recruits Don't Meet New Pullup Standard : NPR
> 
> _Starting Jan. 1, every woman in the Marines Corps was supposed to meet a new physical standard by performing three pullups. But that has been put off.
> 
> The Marine Corps announced it quietly. There was no news conference  just a notice on its social media sites and an item on its own TV show, The Corps Report.
> 
> Lance Cpl. Ally Beiswanger explained that the pullup test had been put off until sometime next year, to gather more data and "ensure all female Marines are given the best opportunity to succeed."
> 
> So far, female Marines are not succeeding. Fifty-five percent of female recruits tested at the end of boot camp were doing fewer than three pullups; only 1 percent of male recruits failed the test.
> 
> The three pullups is already the minimum required for all male Marines. Now the Marine Corps has postponed the plan, and that's raising questions about whether women have the physical strength to handle ground combat, which they'll be allowed to do beginning in 2016.
> 
> Marine officers would not talk to NPR on tape. They said they delayed the pullup requirement to avoid losing not only recruits but also current female Marines who can't pass the test.
> 
> The Marine Corps has been using it to test upper body strength for men for more than 40 years. And that upper body strength, they say, is necessary to serve in ground combat: to pull yourself out of a canal in Afghanistan, to climb over a mud wall, to carry an ammunition box.​_



_INTERESTING._

When I was with the 3/1 there were not PULL UP requirements for the Marines.

Must be something new.

Gee one wonders _why now_, eh?


----------



## Katzndogz

editec said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Watch the military lower the standards for women.  You know they'r egoing to do it to avoid the wrath of MOOCHelle and the rest of the feminists.
> 
> Marines: Most Female Recruits Don't Meet New Pullup Standard : NPR
> 
> _Starting Jan. 1, every woman in the Marines Corps was supposed to meet a new physical standard by performing three pullups. But that has been put off.
> 
> The Marine Corps announced it quietly. There was no news conference  just a notice on its social media sites and an item on its own TV show, The Corps Report.
> 
> Lance Cpl. Ally Beiswanger explained that the pullup test had been put off until sometime next year, to gather more data and "ensure all female Marines are given the best opportunity to succeed."
> 
> So far, female Marines are not succeeding. Fifty-five percent of female recruits tested at the end of boot camp were doing fewer than three pullups; only 1 percent of male recruits failed the test.
> 
> The three pullups is already the minimum required for all male Marines. Now the Marine Corps has postponed the plan, and that's raising questions about whether women have the physical strength to handle ground combat, which they'll be allowed to do beginning in 2016.
> 
> Marine officers would not talk to NPR on tape. They said they delayed the pullup requirement to avoid losing not only recruits but also current female Marines who can't pass the test.
> 
> The Marine Corps has been using it to test upper body strength for men for more than 40 years. And that upper body strength, they say, is necessary to serve in ground combat: to pull yourself out of a canal in Afghanistan, to climb over a mud wall, to carry an ammunition box.​_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _INTERESTING._
> 
> When I was with the 3/1 there were not PULL UP requirements for the Marines.
> 
> Must be something new.
> 
> Gee one wonders _why now_, eh?
Click to expand...


The past 40 years is not "now".  It's a requirement of the past 40 years.


----------



## ShootSpeeders

Pogo said:


> [
> What the fuck does this have to do with "Liberals"?
> 
> You daft, bro?



It's you stupid illogical liberals who tell us we have to let women into the military because of equality and then you say we have to have lower physical standards for women because they're inferior!!!!


----------



## Edgetho

I could see letting women into Special Forces.  I mean THE Special Forces, not SEALs, Rangers, etc.

Many times, SF has to work with people of both sexes in remote areas, villages and towns.  Many times, SF is little more than a "Peace Corps with guns" trying to organize a local resistance to (usually) communist scum or sometimes to Islamic murderers.  

SF doesn't go screaming into battle with a knife clenched between their teeth and bloodlust in their hearts.

More sophisticated than that.  

As to the physicla part of it?  Women just simply aren't the physical equal of men at their peak.

No way.  No how.  All that would happen is that they would get themselves and some good soldiers killed in a bad situation.

If done intelligently, women can be an asset.


----------



## MikeK

SFC Ollie said:


> U.S. Army trainers will soon lead an effort to create gender-neutral physical standards for all soldiers as part of a plan to allow women to serve in infantry, Special Forces and other combat arms jobs.
> Army Submits Plan to Open Combat Jobs for Women | Military.com
> 
> 
> Translation: We will now lower the standards for everyone so that women can qualify the same as the men, who won't have to work as hard as they used to.
> 
> Ladies and gentlemen, for the first time I can honestly say that's not my military and I'm glad I'm out........
> 
> This is just one more step in the downward spiral of this once great country....
> 
> It's sad.


Sad?  It's a goddam shame.


----------



## dreolin

MikeK said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Army trainers will soon lead an effort to create gender-neutral physical standards for all soldiers as part of a plan to allow women to serve in infantry, Special Forces and other combat arms jobs.
> Army Submits Plan to Open Combat Jobs for Women | Military.com
> 
> 
> Translation: We will now lower the standards for everyone so that women can qualify the same as the men, who won't have to work as hard as they used to.
> 
> Ladies and gentlemen, for the first time I can honestly say that's not my military and I'm glad I'm out........
> 
> This is just one more step in the downward spiral of this once great country....
> 
> It's sad.
> 
> 
> 
> Sad?  It's a goddam shame.
Click to expand...


They always made allowances for age on the PT tests. I never took the breaks and always maxed out anyway but I didn't have probs with those who did take the break. I think at 26 they kicked in. So we need to restrict those over 26 y.o. from combat?

And in all my time in the service, in combat and in peace, I never had to do anything that a woman couldn't do, but I have seen plenty of E-6 "combat ready" troops who could hardly breathe.

And this country is still great because we are capable of changing instead of just moanin' and groanin' like some played out old pissants.

Ya know, there was a time, back in your good ol' days, where women couldn't vote either and I thank god for tired and weak women who didn't feel like standing up on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama.


----------



## novasteve

All liberal faggots care abotu is feeling good about themselves.


----------



## dreolin

The minimum height and weight requirement for a male to enlist in the USMC is 4'10" and 91 pounds.

They can hold a combat MOS.


----------



## dreolin

novasteve said:


> All liberal faggots care abotu is feeling good about themselves.



I can only assume you are speaking from experience as you seem to issue that pronouncement with a degree of authority.


----------



## dreolin

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Women aren't as good as doing pull-ups as men.
> 
> What's your point?




The onliest thing I can figure is some of these cats have never heard of airmobile and that an M-16 weighs 75 pounds.

Women are just as capable as men to hold a combat MOS and in many cases, more capable at the job.


----------



## MikeK

dreolin said:


> [...]
> 
> Ya know, there was a time, back in your good ol' days, where women couldn't vote either and I thank god for tired and weak women who didn't feel like standing up on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama.


There is a significant difference between voting and exposure to intense combat conditions over sustained periods of time, conditions which women are neither physically nor psychologically adaptable to.  

I was never in combat but I was in the Marine Corps during the time (1956 to 1960) when the notion of assigning women to combat line companies was first tested and quickly shown to be _impractical_ in the simplest terms.  The women could not endure forced marches nor could they compete with men in any of the physical or psychological stress trials.  

The bottom line is political correctness has no place in this issue.  While there are occasional exceptions, women in general are not designed by Nature to contend with men in kill-or-be-killed confrontations.  And that's what men love about them.


----------



## Vikrant

More American women have fought and died in Iraq than in any war since World War Two, yet as soldiers they are still painfully alone. In Iraq, only one in ten troops is a woman, and she often serves in a unit with few other women or none at all. This isolation, along with the military's deep-seated hostility toward women, causes problems that many female soldiers find as hard to cope with as war itself: degradation, sexual persecution by their comrades, and loneliness, instead of the camaraderie that every soldier depends on for comfort and survival. As one female soldier said, "I ended up waging my own war against an enemy dressed in the same uniform as mine."

In The Lonely Soldier, Benedict tells the stories of five women who fought in Iraq between 2003 and 2006. She follows them from their childhoods to their enlistments, then takes them through their training, to war and home again, all the while setting the war's events in context. 

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/The-Lonely-Soldier-Private-Serving/dp/0807061492]The Lonely Soldier: The Private War of Women Serving in Iraq: Helen Benedict: 9780807061497: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]


----------



## MikeK

Vikrant said:


> More American women have fought and died in Iraq than in any war since World War Two, yet as soldiers they are still painfully alone. In Iraq, only one in ten troops is a woman, and she often serves in a unit with few other women or none at all. This isolation, along with the military's deep-seated hostility toward women, causes problems that many female soldiers find as hard to cope with as war itself: degradation, sexual persecution by their comrades, and loneliness, instead of the camaraderie that every soldier depends on for comfort and survival. As one female soldier said, "I ended up waging my own war against an enemy dressed in the same uniform as mine."
> 
> In The Lonely Soldier, Benedict tells the stories of five women who fought in Iraq between 2003 and 2006. She follows them from their childhoods to their enlistments, then takes them through their training, to war and home again, all the while setting the war's events in context.
> 
> The Lonely Soldier: The Private War of Women Serving in Iraq: Helen Benedict: 9780807061497: Amazon.com: Books


When I was in the Marine Corps our Women Marines were very well trained in the use of most small arms (up to .50 BMG and rocket launchers), which they qualified with and were quite proficient in the use of.  It was understood this proficiency was reserved for *last resort* circumstances and the idea of assigning them to combat line companies wasn't even vaguely considered.  

The WMs were assigned to such MOS fields as motor pool, clerical, supply and support services, base maintenance, etc.  They were good at their jobs, we respected them, and there was no hostility toward them.  But I can't imagine what the Corps would be like if women were included in such fields as infantry, combat engineers, artillery, and the like.

Armed combat units are the modern equivalent of primitive tribal warrior cults.  They are the very essence of machismo.  To allow contemporary feminists to encroach upon this ancient and very natural circumstance is a serious mistake -- as evidenced by the problems of rape, harassment, and fundamental discord it has caused in today's Army.  

Women do not belong in combat line companies and they should stop trying to cross this line.


----------



## Vikrant

MikeK said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> More American women have fought and died in Iraq than in any war since World War Two, yet as soldiers they are still painfully alone. In Iraq, only one in ten troops is a woman, and she often serves in a unit with few other women or none at all. This isolation, along with the military's deep-seated hostility toward women, causes problems that many female soldiers find as hard to cope with as war itself: degradation, sexual persecution by their comrades, and loneliness, instead of the camaraderie that every soldier depends on for comfort and survival. As one female soldier said, "I ended up waging my own war against an enemy dressed in the same uniform as mine."
> 
> In The Lonely Soldier, Benedict tells the stories of five women who fought in Iraq between 2003 and 2006. She follows them from their childhoods to their enlistments, then takes them through their training, to war and home again, all the while setting the war's events in context.
> 
> The Lonely Soldier: The Private War of Women Serving in Iraq: Helen Benedict: 9780807061497: Amazon.com: Books
> 
> 
> 
> When I was in the Marine Corps our Women Marines were very well trained in the use of most small arms (up to .50 BMG and rocket launchers), which they qualified with and were quite proficient in the use of.  It was understood this proficiency was reserved for *last resort* circumstances and the idea of assigning them to combat line companies wasn't even vaguely considered.
> 
> The WMs were assigned to such MOS fields as motor pool, clerical, supply and support services, base maintenance, etc.  They were good at their jobs, we respected them, and there was no hostility toward them.  But I can't imagine what the Corps would be like if women were included in such fields as infantry, combat engineers, artillery, and the like.
> 
> Armed combat units are the modern equivalent of primitive tribal warrior cults.  They are the very essence of machismo.  To allow contemporary feminists to encroach upon this ancient and very natural circumstance is a serious mistake -- as evidenced by the problems of rape, harassment, and fundamental discord it has caused in today's Army.
> 
> Women do not belong in combat line companies and they should stop trying to cross this line.
Click to expand...


In addition to rape, I just learned that women soldiers were subjected to prostitution as well. There were 48K reported incidents of rape against female soldiers last year. I think this is wrong. If a woman wishes to serve her country in the capacity of soldier she should be allowed to. 

---

Several "young, cash-strapped female privates" from Ft. Hood testified this week that they were pressured to prostitute themselves to superiorsand that the senior soldier who pressed them was his unit's sexual assault prevention officer.

The revelations came in the military trial of Master Sgt. Brad Grimes, who was found guilty late Tuesday on two charges after meeting with one of the women at a La Quinta Inn for paid sex. The 17-year Army veteran, who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, was demoted and given a letter of reprimanded. He will be permitted to remain in the service.

Amazingly, no charges have been filed against the alleged mastermind of the ring, Sgt. First Class Gregory McQueen, who continues to serve on active duty but was recently stripped of his responsibilities as a battalion sex-assault prevention officer on the Texas base.

The female soldiers, who were relatively new to the service and have not been charged with any crimes, testified that they were recruited into prostitution by McQueen. One private alleged that McQueen made "abusive sexual contact" with her during an "interview" to be in the ring, according to the Austin American-Statesman.

One reason McQueen hasn't been arrested is because Grimes wouldn't testify against himwhat the New Republic called "the buddy-buddy refusal to report on a predatory peer," part of "the military's corrosive gender culture."

For his part, Grimes attempted to evade by punishment by testifying that he never had sex with the soldier he'd gone to see at the La Quinta. "He was tempted, and it's not a crime to be tempted," Grimes' civilian lawyer said. He added: "At the end of the day, Master Sgt. Grimes chose to do the right thing and not have sex with that young lady."

The young lady, however, disagreed: She said Grimes indeed had sex with her, and paid her $100.

Female Soldiers Were Goaded Into Prostitution on Texas Army Base


----------



## gallantwarrior

MikeK said:


> dreolin said:
> 
> 
> 
> [...]
> 
> Ya know, there was a time, back in your good ol' days, where women couldn't vote either and I thank god for tired and weak women who didn't feel like standing up on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama.
> 
> 
> 
> There is a significant difference between voting and exposure to intense combat conditions over sustained periods of time, conditions which women are neither physically nor psychologically adaptable to.
> 
> I was never in combat but I was in the Marine Corps during the time (1956 to 1960) when the notion of assigning women to combat line companies was first tested and quickly shown to be _impractical_ in the simplest terms.  The women could not endure forced marches nor could they compete with men in any of the physical or psychological stress trials.
> 
> The bottom line is political correctness has no place in this issue.  While there are occasional exceptions, women in general are not designed by Nature to contend with men in kill-or-be-killed confrontations.  And that's what men love about them.
Click to expand...


I beg to differ.  Some of the toughest troops I've ever encountered we're women.  Case in point:  I had a gal, weighed all of 92 lbs.  our basic issue weighed just around 85 lbs.  she _always_ finished every ruck march.  She was slower than most guys, but she did the same things they did.  Disregarding lean body mass index, based solely on percentage, a 210 guy would have to hump around 183 lbs to match this woman's accomplishment.  I guarantee they'd be moving a bit more slowly, too.


----------



## Kondor3

gallantwarrior said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dreolin said:
> 
> 
> 
> [...]
> 
> Ya know, there was a time, back in your good ol' days, where women couldn't vote either and I thank god for tired and weak women who didn't feel like standing up on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama.
> 
> 
> 
> There is a significant difference between voting and exposure to intense combat conditions over sustained periods of time, conditions which women are neither physically nor psychologically adaptable to.
> 
> I was never in combat but I was in the Marine Corps during the time (1956 to 1960) when the notion of assigning women to combat line companies was first tested and quickly shown to be _impractical_ in the simplest terms.  The women could not endure forced marches nor could they compete with men in any of the physical or psychological stress trials.
> 
> The bottom line is political correctness has no place in this issue.  While there are occasional exceptions, women in general are not designed by Nature to contend with men in kill-or-be-killed confrontations.  And that's what men love about them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _I beg to differ.  Some of the toughest troops I've ever encountered we're women.  Case in point:  I had a gal, weighed all of 92 lbs.  our basic issue weighed just around 85 lbs.  she always finished every ruck march.  She was slower than most guys, but she did the same things they did.  *Disregarding lean body mass index*, based solely on percentage, a 210 guy would have to hump around 183 lbs to match this woman's accomplishment.  I guarantee they'd be moving a bit more slowly, too_.
Click to expand...

That's not the point.

The point *IS*...

Can your average 92 lb female Infantry soldier stand up to your average 210 lb male Infantry soldier in hand-to-hand combat, when it gets up-close and personal, as it does often enough, even in our present age?

The answer to that question is "No".

Not 'on the average' or 'in-the-main' or 'for the most-part'.

And, for that reason, I am totally opposed to women serving in the Infantry.

They can do any of a hundred-and-one support and logistics and admin roles.

They can fly combat aircraft on combat missions, as they do now, although that's pushing it, if they're shot down and need to play Infantry trooper.

They can drive combat armor (tanks, etc.) on combat missions, although that's pushing it, if their rig is disabled and they need to bail and play Infantry trooper.

But, in the final analysis, my own feedback would be: '_No Infantry service for women. We'll fix the Combat Badge career-boost issue for you, but, no, sorry, no Infantry service._"

Nature did not equip females for this purpose.


----------



## gallantwarrior

Kondor3 said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a significant difference between voting and exposure to intense combat conditions over sustained periods of time, conditions which women are neither physically nor psychologically adaptable to.
> 
> I was never in combat but I was in the Marine Corps during the time (1956 to 1960) when the notion of assigning women to combat line companies was first tested and quickly shown to be _impractical_ in the simplest terms.  The women could not endure forced marches nor could they compete with men in any of the physical or psychological stress trials.
> 
> The bottom line is political correctness has no place in this issue.  While there are occasional exceptions, women in general are not designed by Nature to contend with men in kill-or-be-killed confrontations.  And that's what men love about them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _I beg to differ.  Some of the toughest troops I've ever encountered we're women.  Case in point:  I had a gal, weighed all of 92 lbs.  our basic issue weighed just around 85 lbs.  she always finished every ruck march.  She was slower than most guys, but she did the same things they did.  *Disregarding lean body mass index*, based solely on percentage, a 210 guy would have to hump around 183 lbs to match this woman's accomplishment.  I guarantee they'd be moving a bit more slowly, too_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not the point.
> 
> The point *IS*...
> 
> Can your average 92 lb female Infantry soldier stand up to your average 210 lb male Infantry soldier in hand-to-hand combat, when it gets up-close and personal, as it does often enough, even in our present age?
> 
> The answer to that question is "No".
> 
> Not 'on the average' or 'in-the-main' or 'for the most-part'.
> 
> And, for that reason, I am totally opposed to women serving in the Infantry.
> 
> They can do any of a hundred-and-one support and logistics and admin roles.
> 
> They can fly combat aircraft on combat missions, as they do now, although that's pushing it, if they're shot down and need to play Infantry trooper.
> 
> They can drive combat armor (tanks, etc.) on combat missions, although that's pushing it, if their rig is disabled and they need to bail and play Infantry trooper.
> 
> But, in the final analysis, my own feedback would be: '_No Infantry service for women. We'll fix the Combat Badge career-boost issue for you, but, no, sorry, no Infantry service._"
> 
> Nature did not equip females for this purpose.
Click to expand...


I do not disagree with you about women in combat arms.  I was trying to point out to someone else that women can be, and often are, pretty tough soldiers.  As to your hand-to-hand observation, how many 150 men could take a 210+ guy in hand-to-hand combat?  About as many as my 89 lb woman could.  Unless the smaller opponent had some additional training, of course.


----------



## SFC Ollie

2 things.

1st " deep-seated hostility toward women" Bullshit.

2nd. Women do not belong in forward combat Units to include forward support units.

And that's from what I saw in 22 years..............


----------



## MikeK

gallantwarrior said:


> [...]
> 
> The bottom line is political correctness has no place in this issue.  While there are occasional exceptions, women in general are not designed by Nature to contend with men in kill-or-be-killed confrontations.  And that's what men love about them.





> I beg to differ.  Some of the toughest troops I've ever encountered we're women.  [...]


That is quite a statement.  

I can't challenge it with any authority because my military experience took place at a different time in America.  And what you've said is American men are not what they were in my time -- and my father's time.  I suggest what our troops are facing today is very different from what our troops faced on Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal, The Bulge, and the jungles of Viet Nam.  

I'm thinking your reference might be the kind of warfare which is common to our combat actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, which typically involve well-rested patrols who depart from a base in the morning, engage significantly inferior adversaries, and return to base at night if they don't trigger an IED.  I'm wondering how these "combat ready" women would deal with Russian troops under sustained (weeks/months) field operations.  

So essentially we are talking about a different time and vastly different circumstances.  And the problem is these circumstances are subject to change and our contemporary military could encounter well-trained, well-equipped troops rather than cucumber farmers with AK-47s, wearing pajamas and sneakers.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

Big Black Dog said:


> I agree, SFC Ollie.  It's a very sad thing.  I truly believe that women have a place in the military BUT I strongly disagree about putting them in combat situations.  Sorry.  I'm "old school".




I guess I am too.  I do not believe women should be there.  They are endangering the lives of others as well as their own.


----------



## Vikrant

*
As Qualified Men Dwindle, Military Looks For A Few Good Women
*

As Qualified Men Dwindle, Military Looks For A Few Good Women : NPR


----------



## SFC Ollie

Bullshit.


----------



## HenryBHough

The Marines being the most fierce they'll likely be the first branch to constitute a PMS Battalion.


----------



## MikeK

Vikrant said:


> *
> As Qualified Men Dwindle, Military Looks For A Few Good Women
> *
> 
> As Qualified Men Dwindle, Military Looks For A Few Good Women : NPR


We need to restore the DRAFT for several good reasons.  (And not include women in it.)


----------



## bigrebnc1775

I'm sorry call me a male chauvinist pig woman hater, but average women does not have the upper body strength as the average male does. Keep the standards as is or you are no longer maintain equality.
OH an yes equal does not mean lowering the standards already set and tested to see who is the best of the best.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Life is not made up like GI Jane.


----------



## MikeK

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Life is not made up like GI Jane.


Quite right.

Back in 1957 or '58 (while I was stationed on Okinawa), in response to a political issue concerning the draft and women serving in the military, the Marine Corps experimentally ran women through the standard Parris Island boot camp program.  Not one of them got past the sixth week of the thirteen week regimen.  They could not endure forced marches.  They could not get through the obstacle courses.  A substantial number of them "cracked" from the brutally intense psychological stress.  I recall the Commandant at the time, Brig. General Larsen, said "under no circumstances will Women Marines be assigned to (combat) line companies!"  

What most people don't realize is Parris Island is thirteen solid weeks of continuous, constant, uninterrupted, increasingly intensified pressure, from reveille to taps, seven days a week, from day one to graduation.  There are no breaks.  No relief.  Its main objective is to determine if recruits are able to withstand the pressure and demands of sustained combat conditions.  While there are exceptions, women generally cannot because they are designed by Nature to perform a very different function.


----------



## Vikrant

MikeK said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life is not made up like GI Jane.
> 
> 
> 
> Quite right.
> 
> Back in 1957 or '58 (while I was stationed on Okinawa), in response to a political issue concerning the draft and women serving in the military, the Marine Corps experimentally ran women through the standard Parris Island boot camp program.  Not one of them got past the sixth week of the thirteen week regimen.  They could not endure forced marches.  They could not get through the obstacle courses.  A substantial number of them "cracked" from the brutally intense psychological stress.  I recall the Commandant at the time, Brig. General Larsen, said "under no circumstances will Women Marines be assigned to (combat) line companies!"
> 
> What most people don't realize is Parris Island is thirteen solid weeks of continuous, constant, uninterrupted, increasingly intensified pressure, from reveille to taps, seven days a week, from day one to graduation.  There are no breaks.  No relief.  Its main objective is to determine if recruits are able to withstand the pressure and demands of sustained combat conditions.  While there are exceptions, women generally cannot because they are designed by Nature to perform a very different function.
Click to expand...


Women have changed. I remember in the 90s women used to have hard time lifting TVs and stuff like that. That is not the case anymore I see them working with weights in the gym that are pretty impressive even from men's standard. I see them lifting heavy items. Their attitude has changed.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Vikrant said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life is not made up like GI Jane.
> 
> 
> 
> Quite right.
> 
> Back in 1957 or '58 (while I was stationed on Okinawa), in response to a political issue concerning the draft and women serving in the military, the Marine Corps experimentally ran women through the standard Parris Island boot camp program.  Not one of them got past the sixth week of the thirteen week regimen.  They could not endure forced marches.  They could not get through the obstacle courses.  A substantial number of them "cracked" from the brutally intense psychological stress.  I recall the Commandant at the time, Brig. General Larsen, said "under no circumstances will Women Marines be assigned to (combat) line companies!"
> 
> What most people don't realize is Parris Island is thirteen solid weeks of continuous, constant, uninterrupted, increasingly intensified pressure, from reveille to taps, seven days a week, from day one to graduation.  There are no breaks.  No relief.  Its main objective is to determine if recruits are able to withstand the pressure and demands of sustained combat conditions.  While there are exceptions, women generally cannot because they are designed by Nature to perform a very different function.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Women have changed. I remember in the 90s women used to have hard time lifting TVs and stuff like that. That is not the case anymore I see them working with weights in the gym that are pretty impressive even from men's standard. I see them lifting heavy items. Their attitude has changed.
Click to expand...


Women have not physically changed.


----------



## Kondor3

God or Nature or Fate did not see fit to give women the physical ability to serve as Infantry soldiers in parity with men. I see no point trying to override that which cannot be overridden; protestations by some progressives and hyper-egalitarians and a variety of well-intentioned but naive, unrealistic souls to the contrary notwithstanding.


----------



## Vikrant

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quite right.
> 
> Back in 1957 or '58 (while I was stationed on Okinawa), in response to a political issue concerning the draft and women serving in the military, the Marine Corps experimentally ran women through the standard Parris Island boot camp program.  Not one of them got past the sixth week of the thirteen week regimen.  They could not endure forced marches.  They could not get through the obstacle courses.  A substantial number of them "cracked" from the brutally intense psychological stress.  I recall the Commandant at the time, Brig. General Larsen, said "under no circumstances will Women Marines be assigned to (combat) line companies!"
> 
> What most people don't realize is Parris Island is thirteen solid weeks of continuous, constant, uninterrupted, increasingly intensified pressure, from reveille to taps, seven days a week, from day one to graduation.  There are no breaks.  No relief.  Its main objective is to determine if recruits are able to withstand the pressure and demands of sustained combat conditions.  While there are exceptions, women generally cannot because they are designed by Nature to perform a very different function.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Women have changed. I remember in the 90s women used to have hard time lifting TVs and stuff like that. That is not the case anymore I see them working with weights in the gym that are pretty impressive even from men's standard. I see them lifting heavy items. Their attitude has changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Women have not physically changed.
Click to expand...


In my observation they have. This realization is recent for me and it happened at a gym when I noticed a girl who was working out next to me. Afterward I started paying attention and I realized that the current generation of girls in their 20s are not shy of flexing their muscles. They are not apologetic about their diet and strength.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Vikrant said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Women have changed. I remember in the 90s women used to have hard time lifting TVs and stuff like that. That is not the case anymore I see them working with weights in the gym that are pretty impressive even from men's standard. I see them lifting heavy items. Their attitude has changed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Women have not physically changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In my observation they have. This realization is recent for me and it happened at a gym when I noticed a girl who was working out next to me. Afterward I started paying attention and I realized that the current generation of girls in their 20s are not shy of flexing their muscles. They are not apologetic about their diet and strength.
Click to expand...


Are you really going with that? Woman have not physically changed they are not stronger than men no matter how much they flex their tiny  little muscles in front of you.


----------



## Kondor3

Vikrant said:


> "..._In my observation they have. This realization is recent for me and it happened at a gym when I noticed a girl who was working out next to me. Afterward I started paying attention and I realized that the current generation of girls in their 20s are not shy of flexing their muscles. They are not apologetic about their diet and strength._"


I don't mean to be unkind here but your recent personal observations and conclusions while working-out in a local gym are not the substance by which nations alter critical defense and armed-forces policy, with lives and confidence at-stake, nor are they the stuff by which we set aside 3,000,000 years of human evolution and its resulting realities.


----------



## Vikrant

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Women have not physically changed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my observation they have. This realization is recent for me and it happened at a gym when I noticed a girl who was working out next to me. Afterward I started paying attention and I realized that the current generation of girls in their 20s are not shy of flexing their muscles. They are not apologetic about their diet and strength.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you really going with that? Woman have not physically changed they are not stronger than men no matter how much they flex their tiny  little muscles in front of you.
Click to expand...


Well, I do not have a very strong desire to see women in combat. For the major part of my life, I held the belief that they (women) were significantly weaker than men. However, it has become harder for me to maintain that belief based on my recent observation of younger generation of women. When I was in my 20s, I did not recall seeing any women in my Jiu Jitsu classes but now a days I see lots of them. Some of them are even eager to spar with men. I see them in gyms working with weights that are even difficult for average men. You have to be a blind person to not see the change. The driving force behind this change does not come from some sort of genetic mutation that made them physically stronger; it comes from a change in the attitude. They have two choices in the life: a) resign to being weak and be dependent on men b) be strong and take charge of their destiny. They seem to be picking the latter option.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Vikrant said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my observation they have. This realization is recent for me and it happened at a gym when I noticed a girl who was working out next to me. Afterward I started paying attention and I realized that the current generation of girls in their 20s are not shy of flexing their muscles. They are not apologetic about their diet and strength.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really going with that? Woman have not physically changed they are not stronger than men no matter how much they flex their tiny  little muscles in front of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I do not have a very strong desire to see women in combat. For the major part of my life, I held the belief that they (women) were significantly weaker than men. However, it has become harder for me to maintain that belief based on my recent observation of younger generation of women. When I was in my 20s, I did not recall seeing any women in my Jiu Jitsu classes but now a days I see lots of them. Some of them are even eager to spar with men. I see them in gyms working with weights that are even difficult for average men. You have to be a blind person to not see the change. The driving force behind this change does not come from some sort of genetic mutation that made them physically stronger; it comes from a change in the attitude. They have two choices in the life: a) resign to being weak and be dependent on men b) be strong and take charge of their destiny. They seem to be picking the latter option.
Click to expand...


Why can't women play professional NFL football?


----------



## gallantwarrior

MikeK said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> 
> [...]
> 
> The bottom line is political correctness has no place in this issue.  While there are occasional exceptions, women in general are not designed by Nature to contend with men in kill-or-be-killed confrontations.  And that's what men love about them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I beg to differ.  Some of the toughest troops I've ever encountered we're women.  [...]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is quite a statement.
> 
> I can't challenge it with any authority because my military experience took place at a different time in America.  And what you've said is American men are not what they were in my time -- and my father's time.  I suggest what our troops are facing today is very different from what our troops faced on Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal, The Bulge, and the jungles of Viet Nam.
> 
> I'm thinking your reference might be the kind of warfare which is common to our combat actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, which typically involve well-rested patrols who depart from a base in the morning, engage significantly inferior adversaries, and return to base at night if they don't trigger an IED.  I'm wondering how these "combat ready" women would deal with Russian troops under sustained (weeks/months) field operations.
> 
> So essentially we are talking about a different time and vastly different circumstances.  And the problem is these circumstances are subject to change and our contemporary military could encounter well-trained, well-equipped troops rather than cucumber farmers with AK-47s, wearing pajamas and sneakers.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure when you served, or how long.  I retired in 1994.  My "combat" experience was gained mostly because I was involved investigating terrorist attacks.  Totally different kind of terrorist than we encounter in the Middle East, though.  Just as the troops we encounter over there are much different from the Viet Namese and Koreans my father encountered.  As proved in our own Revolutionary War, even the most well organized, well trained, well disciplined military force is no match for local guerilla fighters.  We should have paid attention to the ass-kicking the Soviets got when they tried moving into the ME.

Most of my current information comes from my daughter and my SIL, who is going through Special Forces training right now.  He's a combat animal, through-and-through.  He has little complimentary to say about the women he encounters, but he does tend to drag his knuckles and beat his chest a lot.  And for every woman like my 89 lb example, I worked with 100's who were perhaps good at their jobs but not really combat material.  But then, I've come across lots of men who were not combat material, either.


----------



## gallantwarrior

MikeK said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life is not made up like GI Jane.
> 
> 
> 
> Quite right.
> 
> Back in 1957 or '58 (while I was stationed on Okinawa), in response to a political issue concerning the draft and women serving in the military, the Marine Corps experimentally ran women through the standard Parris Island boot camp program.  Not one of them got past the sixth week of the thirteen week regimen.  They could not endure forced marches.  They could not get through the obstacle courses.  A substantial number of them "cracked" from the brutally intense psychological stress.  I recall the Commandant at the time, Brig. General Larsen, said "under no circumstances will Women Marines be assigned to (combat) line companies!"
> 
> What most people don't realize is Parris Island is thirteen solid weeks of continuous, constant, uninterrupted, increasingly intensified pressure, from reveille to taps, seven days a week, from day one to graduation.  There are no breaks.  No relief.  Its main objective is to determine if recruits are able to withstand the pressure and demands of sustained combat conditions.  While there are exceptions, women generally cannot because they are designed by Nature to perform a very different function.
Click to expand...


OK, that answers at least one of my questions.  You are around the same age cohort as my father.  And a Marine to boot (Dad was a 26 yr veteran when he retired.)  
You might be disappointed to know that nowadays, the trainees are issued a "stress card" that they can display whenever they feel stressed.  They get a "time-out" to regroup before being further exposed to whatever training "stressed" them.  That's one reason my SIL wanted to be Special Forces, because they don't play that stupid, pussy shit.


----------



## gallantwarrior

Vikrant said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life is not made up like GI Jane.
> 
> 
> 
> Quite right.
> 
> Back in 1957 or '58 (while I was stationed on Okinawa), in response to a political issue concerning the draft and women serving in the military, the Marine Corps experimentally ran women through the standard Parris Island boot camp program.  Not one of them got past the sixth week of the thirteen week regimen.  They could not endure forced marches.  They could not get through the obstacle courses.  A substantial number of them "cracked" from the brutally intense psychological stress.  I recall the Commandant at the time, Brig. General Larsen, said "under no circumstances will Women Marines be assigned to (combat) line companies!"
> 
> What most people don't realize is Parris Island is thirteen solid weeks of continuous, constant, uninterrupted, increasingly intensified pressure, from reveille to taps, seven days a week, from day one to graduation.  There are no breaks.  No relief.  Its main objective is to determine if recruits are able to withstand the pressure and demands of sustained combat conditions.  While there are exceptions, women generally cannot because they are designed by Nature to perform a very different function.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Women have changed. I remember in the 90s women used to have hard time lifting TVs and stuff like that. That is not the case anymore I see them working with weights in the gym that are pretty impressive even from men's standard. I see them lifting heavy items. Their attitude has changed.
Click to expand...


Some have.


----------



## gallantwarrior

Kondor3 said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._In my observation they have. This realization is recent for me and it happened at a gym when I noticed a girl who was working out next to me. Afterward I started paying attention and I realized that the current generation of girls in their 20s are not shy of flexing their muscles. They are not apologetic about their diet and strength._"
> 
> 
> 
> I don't mean to be unkind here but your recent personal observations and conclusions while working-out in a local gym are not the substance by which nations alter critical defense and armed-forces policy, with lives and confidence at-stake, nor are they the stuff by which we set aside 3,000,000 years of human evolution and its resulting realities.
Click to expand...


Well, like so many government actions, allowing women into combat has loads more to do with pleasing a (minority) constituency than it has to do with the reality of combat and all that means.  The Feminazis have been demanding "equality" with men in the military for a long time.  We now have a regime that is favorable to doing any damned thing, no matter how stupid or impractical, or how much it puts all the other troops in danger...just as long as they garner a few paltry votes.
Fact is men and women are not equal.  It isn't _fair_, although it may be _right_.  Live with it.


----------



## gallantwarrior

Vikrant said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my observation they have. This realization is recent for me and it happened at a gym when I noticed a girl who was working out next to me. Afterward I started paying attention and I realized that the current generation of girls in their 20s are not shy of flexing their muscles. They are not apologetic about their diet and strength.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really going with that? Woman have not physically changed they are not stronger than men no matter how much they flex their tiny  little muscles in front of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I do not have a very strong desire to see women in combat. For the major part of my life, I held the belief that they (women) were significantly weaker than men. However, it has become harder for me to maintain that belief based on my recent observation of younger generation of women. When I was in my 20s, I did not recall seeing any women in my Jiu Jitsu classes but now a days I see lots of them. Some of them are even eager to spar with men. I see them in gyms working with weights that are even difficult for average men. You have to be a blind person to not see the change. The driving force behind this change does not come from some sort of genetic mutation that made them physically stronger; it comes from a change in the attitude. They have two choices in the life: a) resign to being weak and be dependent on men b) be strong and take charge of their destiny. They seem to be picking the latter option.
Click to expand...


Being less physically strong then men does not make women weaker.  There is so much more to true strength than just the ability to lift heavy objects.


----------



## gallantwarrior

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really going with that? Woman have not physically changed they are not stronger than men no matter how much they flex their tiny  little muscles in front of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I do not have a very strong desire to see women in combat. For the major part of my life, I held the belief that they (women) were significantly weaker than men. However, it has become harder for me to maintain that belief based on my recent observation of younger generation of women. When I was in my 20s, I did not recall seeing any women in my Jiu Jitsu classes but now a days I see lots of them. Some of them are even eager to spar with men. I see them in gyms working with weights that are even difficult for average men. You have to be a blind person to not see the change. The driving force behind this change does not come from some sort of genetic mutation that made them physically stronger; it comes from a change in the attitude. They have two choices in the life: a) resign to being weak and be dependent on men b) be strong and take charge of their destiny. They seem to be picking the latter option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why can't women play professional NFL football?
Click to expand...


Why can't millions of men play professional NFL football?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

gallantwarrior said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really going with that? Woman have not physically changed they are not stronger than men no matter how much they flex their tiny  little muscles in front of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I do not have a very strong desire to see women in combat. For the major part of my life, I held the belief that they (women) were significantly weaker than men. However, it has become harder for me to maintain that belief based on my recent observation of younger generation of women. When I was in my 20s, I did not recall seeing any women in my Jiu Jitsu classes but now a days I see lots of them. Some of them are even eager to spar with men. I see them in gyms working with weights that are even difficult for average men. You have to be a blind person to not see the change. The driving force behind this change does not come from some sort of genetic mutation that made them physically stronger; it comes from a change in the attitude. They have two choices in the life: a) resign to being weak and be dependent on men b) be strong and take charge of their destiny. They seem to be picking the latter option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being less physically strong then men does not make women weaker.  There is so much more to true strength than just the ability to lift heavy objects.
Click to expand...


I hate to break the news to you, but a woman cannot physically take a man out. Life is not like what you would see coming from Hollywood.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

gallantwarrior said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I do not have a very strong desire to see women in combat. For the major part of my life, I held the belief that they (women) were significantly weaker than men. However, it has become harder for me to maintain that belief based on my recent observation of younger generation of women. When I was in my 20s, I did not recall seeing any women in my Jiu Jitsu classes but now a days I see lots of them. Some of them are even eager to spar with men. I see them in gyms working with weights that are even difficult for average men. You have to be a blind person to not see the change. The driving force behind this change does not come from some sort of genetic mutation that made them physically stronger; it comes from a change in the attitude. They have two choices in the life: a) resign to being weak and be dependent on men b) be strong and take charge of their destiny. They seem to be picking the latter option.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't women play professional NFL football?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why can't millions of men play professional NFL football?
Click to expand...


However men do play in the NFL when will a woman make the cut?


----------



## gallantwarrior

bigrebnc1775 said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I do not have a very strong desire to see women in combat. For the major part of my life, I held the belief that they (women) were significantly weaker than men. However, it has become harder for me to maintain that belief based on my recent observation of younger generation of women. When I was in my 20s, I did not recall seeing any women in my Jiu Jitsu classes but now a days I see lots of them. Some of them are even eager to spar with men. I see them in gyms working with weights that are even difficult for average men. You have to be a blind person to not see the change. The driving force behind this change does not come from some sort of genetic mutation that made them physically stronger; it comes from a change in the attitude. They have two choices in the life: a) resign to being weak and be dependent on men b) be strong and take charge of their destiny. They seem to be picking the latter option.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being less physically strong then men does not make women weaker.  There is so much more to true strength than just the ability to lift heavy objects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hate to break the news to you, but a woman cannot physically take a man out. Life is not like what you would see coming from Hollywood.
Click to expand...


I'm not talking only about physical strength.  And a woman with the right training can damned well take down a man.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

gallantwarrior said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being less physically strong then men does not make women weaker.  There is so much more to true strength than just the ability to lift heavy objects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to break the news to you, but a woman cannot physically take a man out. Life is not like what you would see coming from Hollywood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not talking only about physical strength.  And a woman with the right training can damned well take down a man.
Click to expand...


Life is not a Hollywood movie Real life never happen.


----------



## gallantwarrior

bigrebnc1775 said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't women play professional NFL football?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't millions of men play professional NFL football?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However men do play in the NFL when will a woman make the cut?
Click to expand...


For the same reason so many other men would not make the cut.  They don't have the physical ability, size, or desire.  (I do know some women who are _big_ enough, though.)


----------



## bigrebnc1775

gallantwarrior said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't millions of men play professional NFL football?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However men do play in the NFL when will a woman make the cut?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the same reason so many other men would not make the cut.  They don't have the physical ability, size, or desire.  (I do know some women who are _big_ enough, though.)
Click to expand...


Some woman have the desire to play professional football. They just don't have the physical ability or size to do it. One hit and it over.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

I'm not aginst woman in the military. I am sitting on the fence as combat is concerned, but if they can make the cut I say let them do it. But don't lower the standards it's a bad idea.


----------



## gallantwarrior

bigrebnc1775 said:


> I'm not aginst woman in the military. I am sitting on the fence as combat is concerned, but if they can make the cut I say let them do it. But don't lower the standards it's a bad idea.



Agreed.  But never, ever lower the standards just to include one group.  Lots of males don't make the cut, either.
I would not want my SIL put into a dangerous situation where one or more of his team members were only there to fulfill some PC requirement in the name of "fairness" and "equality".  I am not ready to deal with a widowed daughter and orphaned granddaughters because some broad needed to have her puny ego stoked.


----------



## SFC Ollie

I thought I had read that the Stress card had been eliminated......


Regardless, Women do not belong in combat.


----------



## Vikrant

If a woman has good stamina, she can lift her weapons and other load, walk all day long, can handle combat stress and is proficient in using her weapons and tools then she is qualified for infantry role. I know it may hurt the ego of some men but that is not the problem of women.


----------



## gallantwarrior

Vikrant said:


> If a woman has good stamina, she can lift her weapons and other load, walk all day long, can handle combat stress and is proficient in using her weapons and tools then she is qualified for infantry role. I know it may hurt the ego of some men but that is not the problem of women.



But do not lower the standard requirements.  There are women out there who could qualify under the higher standards.  In that case, they should be permitted to make the choice.  But they should also be aware of the hazards.


----------



## Vikrant

gallantwarrior said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a woman has good stamina, she can lift her weapons and other load, walk all day long, can handle combat stress and is proficient in using her weapons and tools then she is qualified for infantry role. I know it may hurt the ego of some men but that is not the problem of women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But do not lower the standard requirements.  There are women out there who could qualify under the higher standards.  In that case, they should be permitted to make the choice.  But they should also be aware of the hazards.
Click to expand...


Absolutely. If they want to be soldiers they have to take the heat.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Vikrant said:


> If a woman has good stamina, she can lift her weapons and other load, walk all day long, can handle combat stress and is proficient in using her weapons and tools then she is qualified for infantry role. I know it may hurt the ego of some men but that is not the problem of women.


Combat is not just taking a rifle and pointing it and firing a few rounds hoping to hit something.how about hand to hand combat, that still exist


----------



## Kondor3

Vikrant said:


> If a woman has good stamina, she can lift her weapons and other load, walk all day long, can handle combat stress and is proficient in using her weapons and tools then she is qualified for infantry role. I know it may hurt the ego of some men but that is not the problem of women.


The average woman - conditioned and prepared and trained for hand-to-hand combat cannot defeat and kill the average man - identically conditioned and prepared and trained.

We're not talking about the oddballs and exceptions here - we're talking about averages - the norm.

It is the 'average' pool from which the lion's share of our warriors are drawn.

This is a non-starter from Day One, and it risks getting a lot of Good Guys killed.

Not that I actually *GET* a vote, but I vote 'No Fucking Way".

Progressive-ism has its place and can be a necessary and good thing in a number of contexts.

In this particular matter the Progressive perspective is naive and dangerous and needs to be ignored for the foolhardy childishness that it is.


----------



## Vikrant

I am not naive. I understand that being a woman imposes all sorts of limitation on a soldier. But if a woman wants to be a soldier and if she qualifies and understands that she may have to go days without shaving her legs, let her be what she wants to be. That is all I am saying.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Days without shaving her legs? You think that's a hardship?

I had women in my signal Platoon who went on training exercises where they were lucky to get a shower once a week.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Vikrant said:


> I am not naive. I understand that being a woman imposes all sorts of limitation on a soldier. But if a woman wants to be a soldier and if she qualifies and understands that she may have to go days without shaving her legs, let her be what she wants to be. That is all I am saying.


I want to be the first man on mars but that ain't happening, because I'm not capible of doing the things required to do that, without lowering the standards.
Should they?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

SFC Ollie said:


> Days without shaving her legs? You think that's a hardship?
> 
> I had women in my signal Platoon who went on training exercises where they were lucky to get a shower once a week.


When I was in Germany, my last year there I had a female flight commander (a Captain). We were on a training exercise our position was being over run she got in her vehicle and ran away. True story.


----------



## Vikrant

bigrebnc1775 said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Days without shaving her legs? You think that's a hardship?
> 
> I had women in my signal Platoon who went on training exercises where they were lucky to get a shower once a week.
> 
> 
> 
> When I was in Germany, my last year there I had a female flight commander (a Captain). We were on a training exercise our position was being over run she got in her vehicle and ran away. True story.
Click to expand...


I find it hard to believe that a captain (even a female) would run away from her position in a training exercise.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Vikrant said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Days without shaving her legs? You think that's a hardship?
> 
> I had women in my signal Platoon who went on training exercises where they were lucky to get a shower once a week.
> 
> 
> 
> When I was in Germany, my last year there I had a female flight commander (a Captain). We were on a training exercise our position was being over run she got in her vehicle and ran away. True story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it hard to believe that a captain (even a female) would run away from her position in a training exercise.
Click to expand...

I really don't care what you find hard to believe it happen.


----------



## Kondor3

Vikrant said:


> I am not naive. I understand that being a woman imposes all sorts of limitation on a soldier. But if a woman wants to be a soldier and if she qualifies and understands that she may have to go days without shaving her legs, let her be what she wants to be. That is all I am saying.


Easy to say, because it won't be _your_ ass on-the-line, when she learns about Reality the hard way. It will be _her_ ass, _*and*_ the ass of the poor bastard _next_ to her, after _you_ saddled him with her.


----------



## Edgetho

Kondor3 said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not naive. I understand that being a woman imposes all sorts of limitation on a soldier. But if a woman wants to be a soldier and if she qualifies and understands that she may have to go days without shaving her legs, let her be what she wants to be. That is all I am saying.
> 
> 
> 
> Easy to say, because it won't be _your_ ass on-the-line, when she learns about Reality the hard way. It will be _her_ ass, _*and*_ the ass of the poor bastard _next_ to her, after _you_ saddled him with her.
Click to expand...


I have been in combat.  Many times.

And I will tell you this; I would NOT want a female soldier in combat with me.

The people who do, are just talking out of their asses.  dimocraps, mostly.  The absolute scum of the Earth.

In an earlier thread, I pointed out where women would be extremely useful in operations at the front in a non-combat role.....  Especially when we have to work with women of other cultures.  Like when we're liberating a Village.

The people of that Village, especially the women, will be scared shitless and having an American Woman around would help calm their nerves.

When a man's wife, daughters, mothers and sisters get really nervous and really afraid.....  So do they.  If having an American woman at the front to help deal with the indigenous women of the area would help matters (it would) then I'm all for it.

But having women, full time, in a combat unit that would be in combat most of the time?

Mental masturbation on th epart of dimocrap scum.

One thing we can be sure of, when good men die because of their idiocy, it won't be one of them.

They'll be hiding in the rear, talking shit.


----------



## gallantwarrior

bigrebnc1775 said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Days without shaving her legs? You think that's a hardship?
> 
> I had women in my signal Platoon who went on training exercises where they were lucky to get a shower once a week.
> 
> 
> 
> When I was in Germany, my last year there I had a female flight commander (a Captain). We were on a training exercise our position was being over run she got in her vehicle and ran away. True story.
Click to expand...


That in no way reflects on her as a woman, it does make her one helluva coward, though.  It's not like men haven't done that very same thing.  When I was 1SG, the second CO I had was on his last chance.  He had done exactly that same thing during Desert Storm, ran away from the action after the vehicle in front of his came under attack.  He eventually stepped in some PC bullshit sufficiently to be asked to resign.  But that's a long story, best left for another time.


----------



## gallantwarrior

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I was in Germany, my last year there I had a female flight commander (a Captain). We were on a training exercise our position was being over run she got in her vehicle and ran away. True story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it hard to believe that a captain (even a female) would run away from her position in a training exercise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I really don't care what you find hard to believe it happen.
Click to expand...


Maybe she realized she was going to miss her hair dresser's appointment?


----------



## SFC Ollie

Probably broke a nail......


----------



## Edgetho

Here's something else the average civilian/REMF isn't aware of......

It's tough losing people in battle.  Real tough.  Tougher than you can possibly imagine.

Think about that while I present this next thought to you.......

Men, REAL Men, are naturally protective of women.  I am.  I can't be in the same with a woman who is in pain.  Unless I have to be, then I can, I guess.  I won't like it, though

I can't stand to see a woman cry.  Tears me up inside.  I don't like it.  It causes feelings in me to surface that I don't know how to handle or what to think of them.

Now think about Combat.

Know what happens in Combat boys and girls?

People get hurt in Combat.  Badly hurt.  I mean, horribly, gruesomely, ugly, bloody hurt.

And they sometimes die in horrible, gruesome, bloody and ugly ways.

You take a cute Female SGT E-5 that half the Platoon has a crush on and if she is one of the fallen?  One of the ones to get terribly hurt?  Know what that does to Unit Morale?

It's hard enough to keep a fighting Unit's Morale up.  You put women in Combat MOS's and watch them die or get horribly wounded, and it might just become impossible.

You people need to defer things like this to people like me who have been there.

You can't learn about Combat from a book or TV Movie.


----------



## gallantwarrior

Edgetho said:


> Here's something else the average civilian/REMF isn't aware of......
> 
> It's tough losing people in battle.  Real tough.  Tougher than you can possibly imagine.
> 
> Think about that while I present this next thought to you.......
> 
> Men, REAL Men, are naturally protective of women.  I am.  I can't be in the same with a woman who is in pain.  Unless I have to be, then I can, I guess.  I won't like it, though
> 
> I can't stand to see a woman cry.  Tears me up inside.  I don't like it.  It causes feelings in me to surface that I don't know how to handle or what to think of them.
> 
> Now think about Combat.
> 
> Know what happens in Combat boys and girls?
> 
> People get hurt in Combat.  Badly hurt.  I mean, horribly, gruesomely, ugly, bloody hurt.
> 
> And they sometimes die in horrible, gruesome, bloody and ugly ways.
> 
> You take a cute Female SGT E-5 that half the Platoon has a crush on and if she is one of the fallen?  One of the ones to get terribly hurt?  Know what that does to Unit Morale?
> 
> It's hard enough to keep a fighting Unit's Morale up.  You put women in Combat MOS's and watch them die or get horribly wounded, and it might just become impossible.
> 
> You people need to defer things like this to people like me who have been there.
> 
> You can't learn about Combat from a book or TV Movie.



It's probably better if the guys are fighting to protect the women back home.  
I have to say this, though, I'm not convinced we should be risking any American life and limb in the places and ways we do so currently.  It is sometimes very difficult for folks to make the connection between where we are and what we are doing with protecting the family back home.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

gallantwarrior said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Days without shaving her legs? You think that's a hardship?
> 
> I had women in my signal Platoon who went on training exercises where they were lucky to get a shower once a week.
> 
> 
> 
> When I was in Germany, my last year there I had a female flight commander (a Captain). We were on a training exercise our position was being over run she got in her vehicle and ran away. True story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That in no way reflects on her as a woman, it does make her one helluva coward, though.  It's not like men haven't done that very same thing.  When I was 1SG, the second CO I had was on his last chance.  He had done exactly that same thing during Desert Storm, ran away from the action after the vehicle in front of his came under attack.  He eventually stepped in some PC bullshit sufficiently to be asked to resign.  But that's a long story, best left for another time.
Click to expand...

This was war games no one was going to get hurt, imagine if real bullets were being fired.


----------



## MikeK

gallantwarrior said:


> It's probably better if the guys are fighting to protect the women back home.
> 
> I have to say this, though, I'm not convinced we should be risking any American life and limb in the places and ways we do so currently.  It is sometimes very difficult for folks to make the connection between where we are and what we are doing with protecting the family back home.


Especially when there is no connection -- as in Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Iraq, and Afghanistan.  In all of these wholly unnecessary conflicts the lives and well-being of our troops were wasted, as were phenomenal amounts of our treasure and national reputation.  All in the interest of enriching the Military Industrial Complex and the corrupt politicians who facilitate it.


----------



## Iceman

And people wonder why the Taliban is winning...


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

gallantwarrior said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really going with that? Woman have not physically changed they are not stronger than men no matter how much they flex their tiny  little muscles in front of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I do not have a very strong desire to see women in combat. For the major part of my life, I held the belief that they (women) were significantly weaker than men. However, it has become harder for me to maintain that belief based on my recent observation of younger generation of women. When I was in my 20s, I did not recall seeing any women in my Jiu Jitsu classes but now a days I see lots of them. Some of them are even eager to spar with men. I see them in gyms working with weights that are even difficult for average men. You have to be a blind person to not see the change. The driving force behind this change does not come from some sort of genetic mutation that made them physically stronger; it comes from a change in the attitude. They have two choices in the life: a) resign to being weak and be dependent on men b) be strong and take charge of their destiny. They seem to be picking the latter option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being less physically strong then men does not make women weaker.  There is so much more to true strength than just the ability to lift heavy objects.
Click to expand...


True but when you are depending on that true strength to carry your physical body out of a combat zone you will be looking for the one with the ability to lift heavy objects as well.  Which is one of several reasons why women should not be anywhere near a combat zone.  ( personally I don't believe they belong in the military at all.  Let them be work behind the scenes at a desk or a military hospital if they want to help out )


----------



## Bloodrock44

I'll never forget the day I reported into my first unit (armored cav). There were 12 women in the unit (admin, cooks, medics). I could hear my squadron commander in his office pitching a fit because 9 of the 12 were pregnant.


----------



## MikeK

Iceman said:


> And people wonder why the Taliban is winning...


Who are the _Taliban?_ 

Can you identify each of them individually?  

What uniform do they wear?

Do you know they once were known as the _Mujahideen,_ whom we once supported in their purging of Russian troops from their homeland -- just as we would do, and just as they now are trying to do to us?  And do you believe they have a natural human right to do that?  

Did you know we gave them the _Stinger_ missiles they now use to shoot down our helicopters and kill our troops?

Do you believe the internal political conflicts which take place in other nations are quite simply *none of our business?* 

Do you know that our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, such as the drone attacks that kill innocent civilians, are responsible for recruiting more fighters to _Taliban's_ ranks than they possibly could recruit without our provocation?

All of the above amounts to one undeniable reality -- which is our actions in the Middle East have been 100% counterproductive and remain so.  If you believe otherwise it's because you've allowed yourself to be brainwashed.  And that is a fact, not a wise-ass observation.


----------



## Vikrant

Courage is the main requisite to be a soldier. There are some women who are courageous and there are some who are not. This is also true for men. As far as physical strength is concerned, we live in modern age. We no longer charge on horses or fight with swords and tridents. The physical strength required for modern warfare is not the same as what it used to be for warfare during the medieval days. I think there are women out there who have courage and strength to be a soldier in a modern infantry. Not all of them but there are definitely some who got it. It is unfair to discriminate against a qualified woman just because there are some unqualified ones out there.


----------



## Kondor3

Vikrant said:


> Courage is the main requisite to be a soldier. There are some women who are courageous and there are some who are not. This is also true for men. As far as physical strength is concerned, we live in modern age. We no longer charge on horses or fight with swords and tridents. The physical strength required for modern warfare is not the same as what it used to be for warfare during the medieval days. I think there are women out there who have courage and strength to be a soldier in a modern infantry. Not all of them but there are definitely some who got it. It is unfair to discriminate against a qualified woman just because there are some unqualified ones out there.


There is Man's Law...

There is Nature's Law...

You have Man's Law on your side in the debate...

Your opponent's have Nature's Law on their side...

It is the position of your opponents in this matter that Nature's Law must prevail in matters of Life and Death...

With all respect, I do not believe that you have the years nor the military experience to present viable credentials as a judge in such matters, latter-day revisionist hyper-egalitarian interpretations of Man's Law to the contrary notwithstanding...

I believe your position in this matter to be dangerous to the Republic...


----------



## Vikrant

Kondor3 said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Courage is the main requisite to be a soldier. There are some women who are courageous and there are some who are not. This is also true for men. As far as physical strength is concerned, we live in modern age. We no longer charge on horses or fight with swords and tridents. The physical strength required for modern warfare is not the same as what it used to be for warfare during the medieval days. I think there are women out there who have courage and strength to be a soldier in a modern infantry. Not all of them but there are definitely some who got it. It is unfair to discriminate against a qualified woman just because there are some unqualified ones out there.
> 
> 
> 
> There is Man's Law...
> 
> There is Nature's Law...
> 
> You have Man's Law on your side in the debate...
> 
> Your opponent's have Nature's Law on their side...
> 
> It is the position of your opponents in this matter that Nature's Law must prevail in matters of Life and Death...
> 
> With all respect, I do not believe that you have the years nor the military experience to present viable credentials as a judge in such matters, latter-day revisionist hyper-egalitarian interpretations of Man's Law to the contrary notwithstanding...
> 
> I believe your position in this matter to be dangerous to the Republic...
Click to expand...


Your reply to my post is baseless. You have not even addressed the issues I have mentioned in my post.


----------



## Kondor3

Vikrant said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Courage is the main requisite to be a soldier. There are some women who are courageous and there are some who are not. This is also true for men. As far as physical strength is concerned, we live in modern age. We no longer charge on horses or fight with swords and tridents. The physical strength required for modern warfare is not the same as what it used to be for warfare during the medieval days. I think there are women out there who have courage and strength to be a soldier in a modern infantry. Not all of them but there are definitely some who got it. *It is unfair* to discriminate against a qualified woman just because there are some unqualified ones out there.
> 
> 
> 
> There is Man's Law...
> 
> There is Nature's Law...
> 
> You have Man's Law on your side in the debate...
> 
> Your opponent's have Nature's Law on their side...
> 
> It is the position of your opponents in this matter that Nature's Law must prevail in matters of Life and Death...
> 
> With all respect, I do not believe that you have the years nor the military experience to present viable credentials as a judge in such matters, latter-day revisionist hyper-egalitarian interpretations of Man's Law to the contrary notwithstanding...
> 
> I believe your position in this matter to be dangerous to the Republic...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your reply to my post is baseless. You have not even addressed the issues I have mentioned in my post.
Click to expand...

I have addressed it by saying that you have Man's Law on your side...

I have also blown right past it by saying that your opponent's have Nature's Law on their side...

Your legal and ethical arguments are formidable...

Your legal and ethical arguments cannot be allowed to prevail in matters of Life and Death, amongst those who know better...

Your legal and ethical arguments will not matter a damn when some young women - operating under the delusion that she can go toe-to-toe with a similarly trained and equipped man, finds her lifes' blood draining out of her body, because you - and those who think like you - were foolhardy enough to allow her to indulge her delusion, so that you-and-yours could feel good about being 'fair' in your treatment of the genders, in this narrow context...

My reply is not baseless...

It concedes much of the field to your range of arguments...

It simply holds firm with respect to matters of Nature...

And you find that irritating...

The observation stands...

Come back when you've got military experience of your own to play from...

Until then, you'll have to settle for a seat at the kiddie-table, in this particular matter...

You make a fine argument...

It's just that that argument won't mean shit in a foxhole, with the enemy about to swarm-over the position of such unfortunate and foolish women...

We argue against it for them... and we argue against it for those poor males that will have the misfortune to be deployed with them...

You-and-yours are dangerous in this matter...

This is not a matter of Law and Ethics...

This a matter of Nature in all its raw and unvarnished and ugly truth...

*'Fair'* has *nothing* to do with it...


----------



## dreolin

Just curious, but it sounds like no one here has ever called for a fire mission or needed artillery fire.

If they have ever needed artillery support, what were the two things they wanted most?


----------



## dreolin

Kondor3 said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is Man's Law...
> 
> There is Nature's Law...
> 
> You have Man's Law on your side in the debate...
> 
> Your opponent's have Nature's Law on their side...
> 
> It is the position of your opponents in this matter that Nature's Law must prevail in matters of Life and Death...
> 
> With all respect, I do not believe that you have the years nor the military experience to present viable credentials as a judge in such matters, latter-day revisionist hyper-egalitarian interpretations of Man's Law to the contrary notwithstanding...
> 
> I believe your position in this matter to be dangerous to the Republic...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your reply to my post is baseless. You have not even addressed the issues I have mentioned in my post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have addressed it by saying that you have Man's Law on your side...
> 
> I have also blown right past it by saying that your opponent's have Nature's Law on their side...
> 
> Your legal and ethical arguments are formidable...
> 
> Your legal and ethical arguments cannot be allowed to prevail in matters of Life and Death, amongst those who know better...
> 
> Your legal and ethical arguments will not matter a damn when some young women - operating under the delusion that she can go toe-to-toe with a similarly trained and equipped man, finds her lifes' blood draining out of her body, because you - and those who think like you - were foolhardy enough to allow her to indulge her delusion, so that you-and-yours could feel good about being 'fair' in your treatment of the genders, in this narrow context...
> 
> My reply is not baseless...
> 
> It concedes much of the field to your range of arguments...
> 
> It simply holds firm with respect to matters of Nature...
> 
> And you find that irritating...
> 
> The observation stands...
> 
> Come back when you've got military experience of your own to play from...
> 
> Until then, you'll have to settle for a seat at the kiddie-table, in this particular matter...
> 
> You make a fine argument...
> 
> It's just that that argument won't mean shit in a foxhole, with the enemy about to swarm-over the position of such unfortunate and foolish women...
> 
> We argue against it for them... and we argue against it for those poor males that will have the misfortune to be deployed with them...
> 
> You-and-yours are dangerous in this matter...
> 
> This is not a matter of Law and Ethics...
> 
> This a matter of Nature in all its raw and unvarnished and ugly truth...
> 
> *'Fair'* has *nothing* to do with it...
Click to expand...


This "Nature" you talk about would also seem to indicate that you are opposed to male soldiers in combat MOSes that are over 26 years of age?


----------



## Kondor3

dreolin said:


> "..._This 'Nature' you talk about would also seem to indicate that you are opposed to male soldiers in combat MOSes that are over 26 years of age?_"


There are, indeed, age limitations that make perfect sense - at least during periods when the 'labor supply' is ample - although I am uncertain what the Magic Number is (26, 30, etc.).

I am also aware that during times of national crisis - such as WWI and WWII - we drafted men in the age-range of 18 - 45, when it became difficult to find enough younger men.

I am also aware that older 'career men' (lifers) in the military are oftentimes allowed into combat even in our current volunteer-military configuration.

This 'Nature' I speak of would still have the average trained 45-year-old victorious over the average trained 25-year-old female in up-close hand-to-hand combat.

Why do you ask?


----------



## Kondor3

dreolin said:


> Just curious, but it sounds like no one here has ever called for a fire mission or needed artillery fire.
> 
> If they have ever needed artillery support, what were the two things they wanted most?


I don't think anyone here is advocating that females can't function well-enough in combat flight operations, nor field-artillery operations, nor even armored operations (_except for brute-strength tasks like repairing treads, etc._) - with the caveat that they're going to be at a disadvantage if they're shot-down or their rig is disabled and they have to fight on foot.

No... the biggest objection comes in terms of Infantry units and an Infantry MOS.

Opponents (myself included) believe that women do not belong there, and that this is dictated by Natural Law rather than Man's Law.

Your average trained female simply cannot defeat your average and similarly-trained male in up-close-and-personal hand-to-hand combat.

What you and I think about that, and what the law says about that, and what militant rights activists think about that, and whether it's fair or not - none of that changes Nature.


----------



## MHunterB

Kondor3 said:


> dreolin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just curious, but it sounds like no one here has ever called for a fire mission or needed artillery fire.
> 
> If they have ever needed artillery support, what were the two things they wanted most?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone here is advocating that females can't function well-enough in combat flight operations, nor field-artillery operations, nor even armored operations (_except for brute-strength tasks like repairing treads, etc._) - with the caveat that they're going to be at a disadvantage if they're shot-down or their rig is disabled and they have to fight on foot.
> 
> *No... the biggest objection comes in terms of Infantry units and an Infantry MOS.*
> 
> Opponents (myself included) believe that women do not belong there, and that this is dictated by Natural Law rather than Man's Law.
> 
> Your average trained female simply cannot defeat your average and similarly-trained male in up-close-and-personal hand-to-hand combat.
> 
> What you and I think about that, and what the law says about that, and what militant rights activists think about that, and whether it's fair or not - none of that changes Nature.
Click to expand...


That isn't much of an objection IMO - since only something  around 1 in 13 are line troops.   So about 1/13th of our force needs to meet the current/recent physical standards:  there's no point in having a neurosurgeon who's 6'4" and really buffed except that his bulging biceps look great in those scrubs......   

Silly idea:  have one set of PT standards, gender-neutral, for combat MOS's and another for those REMF's everyone loves to hate.

Oh, and I think there *is* a valid reason for pushing troops to their breaking point in Basic:  one doesn't get to 'quit' and walk out in the middle of a fire-fight.  I'm expressing the idea poorly, I know - but there is that unique aspect of military, police and firefighting work (and possibly a couple of other fields as well).  If people don't have the training and info and equipment they need  - what's lost are lives, not money.


----------



## Moonglow

SFC Ollie said:


> U.S. Army trainers will soon lead an effort to create gender-neutral physical standards for all soldiers as part of a plan to allow women to serve in infantry, Special Forces and other combat arms jobs.
> Army Submits Plan to Open Combat Jobs for Women | Military.com
> 
> 
> Translation: We will now lower the standards for everyone so that women can qualify the same as the men, who won't have to work as hard as they used to.
> 
> Ladies and gentlemen, for the first time I can honestly say that's not my military and I'm glad I'm out........
> 
> This is just one more step in the downward spiral of this once great country....
> 
> It's sad.



My aunt is 60 years old and can still kick your ass.


----------



## Edgetho

dreolin said:


> Just curious, but it sounds like no one here has ever called for a fire mission or needed artillery fire.
> 
> If they have ever needed artillery support, what were the two things they wanted most?



Coordinates is all I ever needed.


----------



## dreolin

Kondor3 said:


> dreolin said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._This 'Nature' you talk about would also seem to indicate that you are opposed to male soldiers in combat MOSes that are over 26 years of age?_"
> 
> 
> 
> There are, indeed, age limitations that make perfect sense - at least during periods when the 'labor supply' is ample - although I am uncertain what the Magic Number is (26, 30, etc.).
> 
> I am also aware that during times of national crisis - such as WWI and WWII - we drafted men in the age-range of 18 - 45, when it became difficult to find enough younger men.
> 
> I am also aware that older 'career men' (lifers) in the military are oftentimes allowed into combat even in our current volunteer-military configuration.
> 
> This 'Nature' I speak of would still have the average trained 45-year-old victorious over the average trained 25-year-old female in up-close hand-to-hand combat.
> 
> Why do you ask?
Click to expand...


Well, I was in rom '68-'71, went to finish college, and re-upped from '75-'78. they were obviously diferent armies but that isn't omportant.

Anyay, combat MOS and we had to qualify annually with the M-16 and pass an anual PT test. I am pretty sure those were army wide requirements, at least for combat MOSes.

Well, I recall that they made adjustments, for the older soldiers depending on age, what some people here seem to be referring to as "lowering the standards".

There is a differnce between re-evaluating standards and lowering them. The fields of war change and if we have a military that doesn't adapt to those changes, we are gonna be suckin' hind tit.

Women will do fine.


----------



## dreolin

Edgetho said:


> dreolin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just curious, but it sounds like no one here has ever called for a fire mission or needed artillery fire.
> 
> If they have ever needed artillery support, what were the two things they wanted most?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coordinates is all I ever needed.
Click to expand...


Cool. I can get you a "round out" in a couple of days and within a mile of the target, give or take a coupla hhundred yards or so.

You are way more calm than those infantry oficers I would hear on the other end of life screaming over the airwaves "Get it on target and get it there now, FIRE FOR EFFECT".

Fire direction is a combat arms MOS. People keep talking about Nature or allude to it. Women are slightly better at math calculation than men.


----------



## dreolin

Kondor3 said:


> dreolin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just curious, but it sounds like no one here has ever called for a fire mission or needed artillery fire.
> 
> If they have ever needed artillery support, what were the two things they wanted most?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone here is advocating that females can't function well-enough in combat flight operations, nor field-artillery operations, nor even armored operations (_except for brute-strength tasks like repairing treads, etc._) - with the caveat that they're going to be at a disadvantage if they're shot-down or their rig is disabled and they have to fight on foot.
> 
> No... the biggest objection comes in terms of Infantry units and an Infantry MOS.
> 
> Opponents (myself included) believe that women do not belong there, and that this is dictated by Natural Law rather than Man's Law.
> 
> Your average trained female simply cannot defeat your average and similarly-trained male in up-close-and-personal hand-to-hand combat.
> 
> What you and I think about that, and what the law says about that, and what militant rights activists think about that, and whether it's fair or not - none of that changes Nature.
Click to expand...


I think that if you are in a hand to hand combat, somewhere along the line someone made a very bad decision, first of all. It doesn't happen that often and produces some heroes for the 5:00 news and a whole lot of dead soldiers...film at 11.

But it happens.

Two things. I had a very hard, physical labor job that women were prohibitted from doing until they were allowed, and they did fine. I had the best first sergeant in the world. He was about 5'5" and couldn't have weighed more than 125 and knew a couple of similarly sized people in basic who went to become airborne rangers. They ain't gonna be humpin' this legendary 210 buddy off the battleffield burt hey, I will be glad to help them...and this 210 pound enemy of equal legend, well, i will put my top and two airborne buds against him anytime.

You keep talking about "Nature". Well, women are naturally better at risk assessment and management than men, research has shown. It isn't that big a deal...but maybe some of these hand to hand situations that seem to be everywhere could be avoided if some woman inf. Lt. would look at her O-3 and suggest "I don't really think we have to take that hill, Sir. The one right next to it is higher and not teeming with thousands of bad guys, and it is just a mortar round away."

You keep talking about the "average" man and the "average" woman. That is a somewhat arbitrary and vague definition/assessment...and I think you are losing a lot of good, women soldiers who would succeed admirably and serve with honor and valor in combat fields.

Can I get an 11 Charlie outta ya...LOL.


----------



## MikeK

dreolin said:


> Just curious, but it sounds like no one here has ever called for a fire mission or needed artillery fire.
> 
> If they have ever needed artillery support, what were the two things they wanted most?


I've never called in a fire mission -- mainly because I was never in combat.  But I was an Engineer (bulldozer operator) assigned to artillery batteries (105mm howitzers).  I am very well acquainted with every aspect of putting those guns in service in the field and I can tell you it takes a lot of muscle, not only to dig pits and seat the guns but to hump ammo -- and do it all _fast_.  

I can tell you for sure that except for the extreme exception, artillery is not a practical MOS for women.


----------



## Edgetho

dreolin said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dreolin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just curious, but it sounds like no one here has ever called for a fire mission or needed artillery fire.
> 
> If they have ever needed artillery support, what were the two things they wanted most?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coordinates is all I ever needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool. I can get you a "round out" in a couple of days and within a mile of the target, give or take a coupla hhundred yards or so.
> 
> You are way more calm than those infantry oficers I would hear on the other end of life screaming over the airwaves "Get it on target and get it there now, FIRE FOR EFFECT".
> 
> Fire direction is a combat arms MOS. People keep talking about Nature or allude to it. Women are slightly better at math calculation than men.
Click to expand...



I have called in dozens of Artillery strikes on Map Coordinates alone.  In combat

With me sometimes a 100 meters from where they landed.  Talk about 'pucker factor'.  I usually asked for a smoke round first.....  One with a different color than the other so I could adjust fire.  We had two guns.  Montagnards on both.  Neither one was literate.  Simple, "left, right, up, down" worked for me.  "Drop 100, Up 100, east, west 100" etc works.

Sure, it's better to use 'mils' and all that other FO bullshit but not everybody operates that way.  You're talking about a Unit whose feet are stuck in the sand.

We were a fast-moving, highly aggressive Unit that nobody knew where we were until we told them.  Sometimes, even we didn't know where we were.  Which was another good use for calling in Artillery using map coordinates.

"Hey Sam.  Where da fuck are we?" 

"Beats me, we was running so fast, I have no idea where we are."

"Cool.  I'll call in a locating round about 'here'.  

And we'd shoot an azimuth off of that

And I (they) could put a round in your hip pocket from 6 or 7 miles away.  In minutes.

I have also called in/worked with Spads (A-1 Skyraider) Super Sabres, Cobras, Puff the Magic Dragon (aka; Spooky) (I swear to God, those guys were drunk) and F4s, which suck.  Really suck.  And regular Huey Gunships.

The Air Force, it was harder to get their Freq.  Fly Boys......  

I tried to call in a strike from some 4th ID Artillery 175mm in Pleiku one time, and they were worse than fucking useless.  We were out of range of our guys.  Which happened a lot.

They had to make sure there were no Helicopters, Aircraft (ours, the Vietnamese and whoever else), Sea Gulls, etc in the air and by the time they checked all that bullshit, we were completely out of the area, running our asses off.

I'm sure that you guys knew/know what you were doing, but you weren't any good to us.  At all.  

When we needed Artillery, we needed it Right.Fucking.Now.

Oh, used to crack me up.......  When the 4th ID sent out a Company sized unit, or even a Patrol, they'd turn the Artillery in the direction the Patrol was headed in.

I'm like, "Guys, why not just tell Charlie where you're going so he can have a nice fucking ambush waiting for you?"

I absolutely refused to work with regular units.  Don't take this personal like or anything, but you guys were a bigger threat to American Troops than you were to the enemy half the time.   

I'll settle for the old-fashioned 4 digit maps.

Worked every time.  I have a HUGE amount of respect for cartographers.  Good at what they do.


----------



## Edgetho

MikeK said:


> dreolin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just curious, but it sounds like no one here has ever called for a fire mission or needed artillery fire.
> 
> If they have ever needed artillery support, what were the two things they wanted most?
> 
> 
> 
> I've never called in a fire mission -- mainly because I was never in combat.  But I was an Engineer (bulldozer operator) assigned to artillery batteries (105mm howitzers).  I am very well acquainted with every aspect of putting those guns in service in the field and I can tell you it takes a lot of muscle, not only to dig pits and seat the guns but to hump ammo -- and do it all _fast_.
> 
> I can tell you for sure that except for the extreme exception, artillery is not a practical MOS for women.
Click to expand...


True.....

You guys hardly ever take showers


----------



## SFC Ollie

Edgetho said:


> dreolin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just curious, but it sounds like no one here has ever called for a fire mission or needed artillery fire.
> 
> If they have ever needed artillery support, what were the two things they wanted most?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coordinates is all I ever needed.
Click to expand...


Communications.............

You can talk about us but you can't talk without us.........(One of my Platoon Motto's)


----------



## MikeK

Edgetho said:


> dreolin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coordinates is all I ever needed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cool. I can get you a "round out" in a couple of days and within a mile of the target, give or take a coupla hhundred yards or so.
> 
> You are way more calm than those infantry oficers I would hear on the other end of life screaming over the airwaves "Get it on target and get it there now, FIRE FOR EFFECT".
> 
> Fire direction is a combat arms MOS. People keep talking about Nature or allude to it. Women are slightly better at math calculation than men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have called in dozens of Artillery strikes on Map Coordinates alone.  In combat
> 
> With me sometimes a 100 meters from where they landed.  Talk about 'pucker factor'.  I usually asked for a smoke round first.....  One with a different color than the other so I could adjust fire.  We had two guns.  Montagnards on both.  Neither one was literate.  Simple, "left, right, up, down" worked for me.  "Drop 100, Up 100, east, west 100" etc works.
> 
> Sure, it's better to use 'mils' and all that other FO bullshit but not everybody operates that way.  You're talking about a Unit whose feet are stuck in the sand.
> 
> We were a fast-moving, highly aggressive Unit that nobody knew where we were until we told them.  Sometimes, even we didn't know where we were.  Which was another good use for calling in Artillery using map coordinates.
> 
> "Hey Sam.  Where da fuck are we?"
> 
> "Beats me, we was running so fast, I have no idea where we are."
> 
> "Cool.  I'll call in a locating round about 'here'.
> 
> And we'd shoot an azimuth off of that
> 
> And I (they) could put a round in your hip pocket from 6 or 7 miles away.  In minutes.
> 
> I have also called in/worked with Spads (A-1 Skyraider) Super Sabres, Cobras, Puff the Magic Dragon (aka; Spooky) (I swear to God, those guys were drunk) and F4s, which suck.  Really suck.  And regular Huey Gunships.
> 
> The Air Force, it was harder to get their Freq.  Fly Boys......
> 
> I tried to call in a strike from some 4th ID Artillery 175mm in Pleiku one time, and they were worse than fucking useless.  We were out of range of our guys.  Which happened a lot.
> 
> They had to make sure there were no Helicopters, Aircraft (ours, the Vietnamese and whoever else), Sea Gulls, etc in the air and by the time they checked all that bullshit, we were completely out of the area, running our asses off.
> 
> I'm sure that you guys knew/know what you were doing, but you weren't any good to us.  At all.
> 
> When we needed Artillery, we needed it Right.Fucking.Now.
> 
> Oh, used to crack me up.......  When the 4th ID sent out a Company sized unit, or even a Patrol, they'd turn the Artillery in the direction the Patrol was headed in.
> 
> I'm like, "Guys, why not just tell Charlie where you're going so he can have a nice fucking ambush waiting for you?"
> 
> I absolutely refused to work with regular units.  Don't take this personal like or anything, but you guys were a bigger threat to American Troops than you were to the enemy half the time.
> 
> I'll settle for the old-fashioned 4 digit maps.
> 
> Worked every time.  I have a HUGE amount of respect for cartographers.  Good at what they do.
Click to expand...

Whenever this topic comes to mind I wonder about the effect microcomputer development has on the _fire direction_ aspect of contemporary field artillery.  Because back in the 1950s those FDC (Fire Direction Center) officers made their computations with slide rules, tables books and note pads, and it always amazed me how they did it.  They didn't even have calculators in those days.  Those men were mathematicians who had to do a lot of very complex computing -- and they had to do it super-fast.  And the slightest error could result in killing a lot of our own.  

I'm sure computers have made an enormous difference in expediting a fire mission.  In fact it occurs to me that the process could be almost totally automated by an F/O transmitting commands via iPod to a fully robotized field battery.  

Mind boggling.


----------



## dreolin

Edgetho said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dreolin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just curious, but it sounds like no one here has ever called for a fire mission or needed artillery fire.
> 
> If they have ever needed artillery support, what were the two things they wanted most?
> 
> 
> 
> I've never called in a fire mission -- mainly because I was never in combat.  But I was an Engineer (bulldozer operator) assigned to artillery batteries (105mm howitzers).  I am very well acquainted with every aspect of putting those guns in service in the field and I can tell you it takes a lot of muscle, not only to dig pits and seat the guns but to hump ammo -- and do it all _fast_.
> 
> I can tell you for sure that except for the extreme exception, artillery is not a practical MOS for women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.....
> 
> You guys hardly ever take showers
Click to expand...


I'll try to respect your guys service and I would appreciate the same.

I don't think either one of you know what it takes to get a round out there fast and on target and I was in a FDC where I had to sometimes calculate data for three gun batteries at once because we didn't have anyone else to do the job.  Having capable women in those positions would have saved lives.

Have either one of you been in an FDC in your lives?

We can talk about FOs later if you want, but it ain't pretty, and again, women in those positions would have saveed lives.


----------



## MikeK

dreolin said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never called in a fire mission -- mainly because I was never in combat.  But I was an Engineer (bulldozer operator) assigned to artillery batteries (105mm howitzers).  I am very well acquainted with every aspect of putting those guns in service in the field and I can tell you it takes a lot of muscle, not only to dig pits and seat the guns but to hump ammo -- and do it all _fast_.
> 
> I can tell you for sure that except for the extreme exception, artillery is not a practical MOS for women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True.....
> 
> You guys hardly ever take showers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll try to respect your guys service and I would appreciate the same.
> 
> I don't think either one of you know what it takes to get a round out there fast and on target and I was in a FDC where I had to sometimes calculate data for three gun batteries at once because we didn't have anyone else to do the job.  Having capable women in those positions would have saved lives.
> 
> Have either one of you been in an FDC in your lives?
> 
> We can talk about FOs later if you want, but it ain't pretty, and again, women in those positions would have saveed lives.
Click to expand...


In my time, (and in the Marine Corps) FDC personnel were commissioned officers.  I was enlisted.  

As for women in combat zones -- I am completely opposed to that idea except as a very last resort.  As long as an able-bodied man is available, the front lines are no place for any woman.  And I'm not interested in any opposing argument.


----------



## dreolin

MikeK said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dreolin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cool. I can get you a "round out" in a couple of days and within a mile of the target, give or take a coupla hhundred yards or so.
> 
> You are way more calm than those infantry oficers I would hear on the other end of life screaming over the airwaves "Get it on target and get it there now, FIRE FOR EFFECT".
> 
> Fire direction is a combat arms MOS. People keep talking about Nature or allude to it. Women are slightly better at math calculation than men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have called in dozens of Artillery strikes on Map Coordinates alone.  In combat
> 
> With me sometimes a 100 meters from where they landed.  Talk about 'pucker factor'.  I usually asked for a smoke round first.....  One with a different color than the other so I could adjust fire.  We had two guns.  Montagnards on both.  Neither one was literate.  Simple, "left, right, up, down" worked for me.  "Drop 100, Up 100, east, west 100" etc works.
> 
> Sure, it's better to use 'mils' and all that other FO bullshit but not everybody operates that way.  You're talking about a Unit whose feet are stuck in the sand.
> 
> We were a fast-moving, highly aggressive Unit that nobody knew where we were until we told them.  Sometimes, even we didn't know where we were.  Which was another good use for calling in Artillery using map coordinates.
> 
> "Hey Sam.  Where da fuck are we?"
> 
> "Beats me, we was running so fast, I have no idea where we are."
> 
> "Cool.  I'll call in a locating round about 'here'.
> 
> And we'd shoot an azimuth off of that
> 
> *And I (they) could put a round in your hip pocket from 6 or 7 miles away.  In minutes.*
> 
> I have also called in/worked with Spads (A-1 Skyraider) Super Sabres, Cobras, Puff the Magic Dragon (aka; Spooky) (I swear to God, those guys were drunk) and F4s, which suck.  Really suck.  And regular Huey Gunships.
> 
> The Air Force, it was harder to get their Freq.  Fly Boys......
> 
> I tried to call in a strike from some 4th ID Artillery 175mm in Pleiku one time, and they were worse than fucking useless.  We were out of range of our guys.  Which happened a lot.
> 
> They had to make sure there were no Helicopters, Aircraft (ours, the Vietnamese and whoever else), Sea Gulls, etc in the air and by the time they checked all that bullshit, we were completely out of the area, running our asses off.
> 
> I'm sure that you guys knew/know what you were doing, but you weren't any good to us.  At all.
> 
> When we needed Artillery, we needed it Right.Fucking.Now.
> 
> Oh, used to crack me up.......  When the 4th ID sent out a Company sized unit, or even a Patrol, they'd turn the Artillery in the direction the Patrol was headed in.
> 
> I'm like, "Guys, why not just tell Charlie where you're going so he can have a nice fucking ambush waiting for you?"
> 
> I absolutely refused to work with regular units.  Don't take this personal like or anything, but you guys were a bigger threat to American Troops than you were to the enemy half the time.
> 
> I'll settle for the old-fashioned 4 digit maps.
> 
> Worked every time.  I have a HUGE amount of respect for cartographers.  Good at what they do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whenever this topic comes to mind I wonder about the effect microcomputer development has on the _fire direction_ aspect of contemporary field artillery.  Because back in the 1950s those FDC (Fire Direction Center) officers made their computations with slide rules, tables books and note pads, and it always amazed me how they did it.  They didn't even have calculators in those days.  Those men were mathematicians who had to do a lot of very complex computing -- and they had to do it super-fast.  And the slightest error could result in killing a lot of our own.
> 
> I'm sure computers have made an enormous difference in expediting a fire mission.  In fact it occurs to me that the process could be almost totally automated by an F/O transmitting commands via iPod to a fully robotized field battery.
> 
> Mind boggling.
Click to expand...


We computed entirely manually in vietnam as FADAC was useless. And I am sure it is entirely computerized now, but we are talking about women in combat from our own experience.

Bloodrock walked into his first unit with his CO swearing about 8 or 9 pregnant women. I walked in to my first unit and I was expected to do the job of a dozen men because they couldn't find people to work those slide rules. Even the officers couldn't do it but one, and my first sergeant. There were women, I am sure, who could have filled those positions and would have saved lives, but they were prohibited from serving combat MOSes and in line units.

As for Edgetho...he wants his rounds fast and on target and those were the two things I was talking about...and the 175s were pieces of garbage, but the marines liked them.


----------



## dreolin

MikeK said:


> dreolin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> True.....
> 
> You guys hardly ever take showers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll try to respect your guys service and I would appreciate the same.
> 
> I don't think either one of you know what it takes to get a round out there fast and on target and I was in a FDC where I had to sometimes calculate data for three gun batteries at once because we didn't have anyone else to do the job.  Having capable women in those positions would have saved lives.
> 
> Have either one of you been in an FDC in your lives?
> 
> We can talk about FOs later if you want, but it ain't pretty, and again, women in those positions would have saveed lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In my time, (and in the Marine Corps) FDC personnel were commissioned officers.  I was enlisted.
> 
> As for women in combat zones -- I am completely opposed to that idea except as a very last resort.  As long as an able-bodied man is available, the front lines are no place for any woman.  And I'm not interested in any opposing argument.
Click to expand...


That changed (officer only computers) during Vietnam because not many officers could do it and they didn't want to promote grunts like me, thank God, to command positions.

We could have drawn from a wealth of women and picked some. Does it really bother you guys so much to have your life saved by a woman?

Bottom line too. It's going to happen by 2016. That is a mission and supported by the JCS. In my opinion, good troops would and will do everything possible to support and help those women as they would any other new troops, despite in some cases negative personal opinions. Bad troops will, as always, grouse and complain and throw impediments in the pathway to accomplish that mission.

A stagnant Army is a dead Army. Women will do fine.


----------



## SFC Ollie

They need to stop destroying our military with their stupid Social Engineering..........


----------



## patrickcaturday

> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dreolin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coordinates is all I ever needed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cool. I can get you a "round out" in a couple of days and within a mile of the target, give or take a coupla hhundred yards or so.
> 
> You are way more calm than those infantry oficers I would hear on the other end of life screaming over the airwaves "Get it on target and get it there now, FIRE FOR EFFECT".
> 
> Fire direction is a combat arms MOS. People keep talking about Nature or allude to it. Women are slightly better at math calculation than men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have called in dozens of Artillery strikes on Map Coordinates alone.  In combat
> 
> With me sometimes a 100 meters from where they landed.  Talk about 'pucker factor'.  I usually asked for a smoke round first.....  One with a different color than the other so I could adjust fire.  We had two guns.  Montagnards on both.  Neither one was literate.  Simple, "left, right, up, down" worked for me.  "Drop 100, Up 100, east, west 100" etc works.
> 
> Sure, it's better to use 'mils' and all that other FO bullshit but not everybody operates that way.  You're talking about a Unit whose feet are stuck in the sand.
> 
> We were a fast-moving, highly aggressive Unit that nobody knew where we were until we told them.  Sometimes, even we didn't know where we were.  Which was another good use for calling in Artillery using map coordinates.
> 
> "Hey Sam.  Where da fuck are we?"
> 
> "Beats me, we was running so fast, I have no idea where we are."
> 
> "Cool.  I'll call in a locating round about 'here'.
> 
> And we'd shoot an azimuth off of that
> 
> And I (they) could put a round in your hip pocket from 6 or 7 miles away.  In minutes.
> 
> I have also called in/worked with Spads (A-1 Skyraider) Super Sabres, Cobras, Puff the Magic Dragon (aka; Spooky) (I swear to God, those guys were drunk) and F4s, which suck.  Really suck.  And regular Huey Gunships.
> 
> The Air Force, it was harder to get their Freq.  Fly Boys......
> 
> I tried to call in a strike from some 4th ID Artillery 175mm in Pleiku one time, and they were worse than fucking useless.  We were out of range of our guys.  Which happened a lot.
> 
> They had to make sure there were no Helicopters, Aircraft (ours, the Vietnamese and whoever else), Sea Gulls, etc in the air and by the time they checked all that bullshit, we were completely out of the area, running our asses off.
> 
> I'm sure that you guys knew/know what you were doing, but you weren't any good to us.  At all.
> 
> When we needed Artillery, we needed it Right.Fucking.Now.
> 
> Oh, used to crack me up.......  When the 4th ID sent out a Company sized unit, or even a Patrol, they'd turn the Artillery in the direction the Patrol was headed in.
> 
> I'm like, "Guys, why not just tell Charlie where you're going so he can have a nice fucking ambush waiting for you?"
> 
> I absolutely refused to work with regular units.  Don't take this personal like or anything, but you guys were a bigger threat to American Troops than you were to the enemy half the time.
> 
> I'll settle for the old-fashioned 4 digit maps.
> 
> Worked every time.  I have a HUGE amount of respect for cartographers.  Good at what they do.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



*You know I was never in the military but I do know something about what you guys are talking about.  Edgetho, I got to call it the way I see it , I took a map reading course in ROTC and if that was really the way that you called in artillery support then it is no wonder you don't like the artillery.  For one thing I think your instructions are not standard.  I also know that most vets don't talk as easily as you seem to about their war experiences.  Sorry just the way I see it !!!*


----------



## dreolin

Edgetho said:


> dreolin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coordinates is all I ever needed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cool. I can get you a "round out" in a couple of days and within a mile of the target, give or take a coupla hhundred yards or so.
> 
> You are way more calm than those infantry oficers I would hear on the other end of life screaming over the airwaves "Get it on target and get it there now, FIRE FOR EFFECT".
> 
> Fire direction is a combat arms MOS. People keep talking about Nature or allude to it. Women are slightly better at math calculation than men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have called in dozens of Artillery strikes on Map Coordinates alone.  In combat
> 
> With me sometimes a 100 meters from where they landed.  Talk about 'pucker factor'.  I usually asked for a smoke round first.....  One with a different color than the other so I could adjust fire.  We had two guns.  Montagnards on both.  Neither one was literate.  Simple, "left, right, up, down" worked for me.  "Drop 100, Up 100, east, west 100" etc works.
> 
> Sure, it's better to use 'mils' and all that other FO bullshit but not everybody operates that way.  You're talking about a Unit whose feet are stuck in the sand.
> 
> We were a fast-moving, highly aggressive Unit that nobody knew where we were until we told them.  Sometimes, even we didn't know where we were.  Which was another good use for calling in Artillery using map coordinates.
> 
> "Hey Sam.  Where da fuck are we?"
> 
> "Beats me, we was running so fast, I have no idea where we are."
> 
> "Cool.  I'll call in a locating round about 'here'.
> 
> And we'd shoot an azimuth off of that
> 
> And I (they) could put a round in your hip pocket from 6 or 7 miles away.  In minutes.
> 
> I have also called in/worked with Spads (A-1 Skyraider) Super Sabres, Cobras, Puff the Magic Dragon (aka; Spooky) (I swear to God, those guys were drunk) and F4s, which suck.  Really suck.  And regular Huey Gunships.
> 
> The Air Force, it was harder to get their Freq.  Fly Boys......
> 
> I tried to call in a strike from some 4th ID Artillery 175mm in Pleiku one time, and they were worse than fucking useless.  We were out of range of our guys.  Which happened a lot.
> 
> They had to make sure there were no Helicopters, Aircraft (ours, the Vietnamese and whoever else), Sea Gulls, etc in the air and by the time they checked all that bullshit, we were completely out of the area, running our asses off.
> 
> I'm sure that you guys knew/know what you were doing, but you weren't any good to us.  At all.
> 
> When we needed Artillery, we needed it Right.Fucking.Now.
> 
> Oh, used to crack me up.......  When the 4th ID sent out a Company sized unit, or even a Patrol, they'd turn the Artillery in the direction the Patrol was headed in.
> 
> I'm like, "Guys, why not just tell Charlie where you're going so he can have a nice fucking ambush waiting for you?"
> 
> I absolutely refused to work with regular units.  *Don't take this personal like or anything, *but you guys were a bigger threat to American Troops than you were to the enemy half the time.
> 
> I'll settle for the old-fashioned 4 digit maps.
> 
> Worked every time.  I have a HUGE amount of respect for cartographers.  Good at what they do.
Click to expand...



Don't take this personal like or anything  but get bent. Maybe if you weren't so busy running around like some John Wayne or Audie Murphy and actually knew how to call in a fire mission, we coulda got you what you needed. Ya gotta keep calm out there, boy, and stop pissin' your pants.

Oh, and again, "Don't take this personal like or anything"...


----------



## dreolin

SFC Ollie said:


> They need to stop destroying our military with their stupid Social Engineering..........



Things change, Sarge. 

Support our troops, OK?

And some of those troops are women, and those dreaded negro fellahs nowadays, brought to you by this "stupid Social Engineering".


----------



## SFC Ollie

dreolin said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> They need to stop destroying our military with their stupid Social Engineering..........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Things change, Sarge.
> 
> Support our troops, OK?
> 
> And some of those troops are women, and those dreaded negro fellahs nowadays, brought to you by this "stupid Social Engineering".
Click to expand...


You did not just tell me to support our troops? I know I am miss reading that...

And I know you are not comparing women to Blacks.....I know that for certain...

You can't be that far out of reality..........

Yes the addition to open gays in the military and Women in combat roles is social engineering. And yes i stand against them both and base it on my own 22 years on active duty. 
Don't know or care what your experiences are but I haven't quit yet. I'm currently the Commander of my local American Legion and just turned down The County Commander position....

Now you want to try again?


----------



## dreolin

patrickcaturday said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have called in dozens of Artillery strikes on Map Coordinates alone.  In combat
> 
> With me sometimes a 100 meters from where they landed.  Talk about 'pucker factor'.  I usually asked for a smoke round first.....  One with a different color than the other so I could adjust fire.  We had two guns.  Montagnards on both.  Neither one was literate.  Simple, "left, right, up, down" worked for me.  "Drop 100, Up 100, east, west 100" etc works.
> 
> Sure, it's better to use 'mils' and all that other FO bullshit but not everybody operates that way.  You're talking about a Unit whose feet are stuck in the sand.
> 
> We were a fast-moving, highly aggressive Unit that nobody knew where we were until we told them.  Sometimes, even we didn't know where we were.  Which was another good use for calling in Artillery using map coordinates.
> 
> "Hey Sam.  Where da fuck are we?"
> 
> "Beats me, we was running so fast, I have no idea where we are."
> 
> "Cool.  I'll call in a locating round about 'here'.
> 
> And we'd shoot an azimuth off of that
> 
> And I (they) could put a round in your hip pocket from 6 or 7 miles away.  In minutes.
> 
> I have also called in/worked with Spads (A-1 Skyraider) Super Sabres, Cobras, Puff the Magic Dragon (aka; Spooky) (I swear to God, those guys were drunk) and F4s, which suck.  Really suck.  And regular Huey Gunships.
> 
> The Air Force, it was harder to get their Freq.  Fly Boys......
> 
> I tried to call in a strike from some 4th ID Artillery 175mm in Pleiku one time, and they were worse than fucking useless.  We were out of range of our guys.  Which happened a lot.
> 
> They had to make sure there were no Helicopters, Aircraft (ours, the Vietnamese and whoever else), Sea Gulls, etc in the air and by the time they checked all that bullshit, we were completely out of the area, running our asses off.
> 
> I'm sure that you guys knew/know what you were doing, but you weren't any good to us.  At all.
> 
> When we needed Artillery, we needed it Right.Fucking.Now.
> 
> Oh, used to crack me up.......  When the 4th ID sent out a Company sized unit, or even a Patrol, they'd turn the Artillery in the direction the Patrol was headed in.
> 
> I'm like, "Guys, why not just tell Charlie where you're going so he can have a nice fucking ambush waiting for you?"
> 
> I absolutely refused to work with regular units.  Don't take this personal like or anything, but you guys were a bigger threat to American Troops than you were to the enemy half the time.
> 
> I'll settle for the old-fashioned 4 digit maps.
> 
> Worked every time.  I have a HUGE amount of respect for cartographers.  Good at what they do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *You know I was never in the military but I do know something about what you guys are talking about.  Edgetho, I got to call it the way I see it , I took a map reading course in ROTC and if that was really the way that you called in artillery support then it is no wonder you don't like the artillery.  For one thing I think your instructions are not standard.  I also know that most vets don't talk as easily as you seem to about their war experiences.  Sorry just the way I see it !!!*
Click to expand...


Thanks. People like this guy are the ones who get people killed...the gung ho mothers who have no respect and refused to work with regular units. I'd have to go out and baby sit them sometimes if the CO thought there might be a need for artillery.

I cannot believe this guy just said something like that. I try to respect people in their jobs but when they say things like this fool just said, I just gotta shake my head.


----------



## Gracie

MikeK said:


> dreolin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> True.....
> 
> You guys hardly ever take showers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll try to respect your guys service and I would appreciate the same.
> 
> I don't think either one of you know what it takes to get a round out there fast and on target and I was in a FDC where I had to sometimes calculate data for three gun batteries at once because we didn't have anyone else to do the job.  Having capable women in those positions would have saved lives.
> 
> Have either one of you been in an FDC in your lives?
> 
> We can talk about FOs later if you want, but it ain't pretty, and again, women in those positions would have saveed lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In my time, (and in the Marine Corps) FDC personnel were commissioned officers.  I was enlisted.
> 
> As for women in combat zones -- I am completely opposed to that idea except as a very last resort.  As long as an able-bodied man is available, the front lines are no place for any woman.  And I'm not interested in any opposing argument.
Click to expand...


For a long time, I have said women should be allowed in combat zones...but...if those women can't even do THREE PULLUPS...then maybe I have been wrong. How are they going to pull one of their own, if that person gets hit and needs to be removed to a safer spot? They can't. So women in combat zones are fine..if they are not on the front lines. Maybe on radio, maybe doing medical aid, maybe mechanical things since their hands are smaller and can fit in tighter spots in engines, etc. Even firing weapons. But out there, in the midst of it all? Not so sure now. Especially since I just read that 45% of the women wanting to be in combat couldn't even do three pullups. Hell, I could do that at forty when my hands were still functioning. Not so much now. But those women that join the service..they are young. NOT EVEN THREE???


----------



## Kondor3

Gracie said:


> "..._But out there, in the midst of it all? Not so sure now_..."


Diogenes, put down your lamp.

You've found an honest woman.

One who follows her common sense and not the hyper-egalitarian PC herd.

Regardless of which side of this debate you eventually end-up on, my respects for interjecting some honest and genuine doubt based upon common sense. Salude!


----------



## dreolin

SFC Ollie said:


> dreolin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> They need to stop destroying our military with their stupid Social Engineering..........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Things change, Sarge.
> 
> Support our troops, OK?
> 
> And some of those troops are women, and those dreaded negro fellahs nowadays, brought to you by this "stupid Social Engineering".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You did not just tell me to support our troops? I know I am miss reading that...
> 
> And I know you are not comparing women to Blacks.....I know that for certain...
> 
> You can't be that far out of reality..........
> 
> Yes the addition to open gays in the military and Women in combat roles is social engineering. And yes i stand against them both and base it on my own 22 years on active duty.
> Don't know or care what your experiences are but I haven't quit yet. I'm currently the Commander of my local American Legion and just turned down The County Commander position....
> 
> Now you want to try again?
Click to expand...


And what I am saying is tthat women are going to be in combat MOSes by 2016 and if you support our troops and if you disagree, shut it because nothing you do is going to change it...and they are going to have it hard enough, if reading this board is any indication.

I brought up black soldiers because they were considered "social engineering" of the time that they were being integrated into all white units with similar comments.


----------



## dreolin

Kondor3 said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> "..._But out there, in the midst of it all? Not so sure now_..."
> 
> 
> 
> Diogenes, put down your lamp.
> 
> You've found an honest woman.
> 
> One who follows her common sense and not the hyper-egalitarian PC herd.
> 
> Regardless of which side of this debate you eventually end-up on, my respects for interjecting some honest and genuine doubt based upon common sense. Salude!
Click to expand...



You want honesty, here is some honesty.

Woman will bve serving in combat MOSes by 2016 as dictated by the JCS and they will do fine and conduct themselves with proficiency, honor and valor, and I will support that, as will any good troop despite their personal opinions, and you never will.

How is this, Gracie. Right beore I got out my Bn had to identify NATO vehicles from Warsaw pact vehicles for target acquisition. Only two out of the about 300 I was with could do so with any degree of accuracy. Women have a greater attention to that kind of detail. Maybe women FOs will prevent men the need for so many troops needing to be hauled out of fire.


----------



## SFC Ollie

And those of us with common fucking sense will not accept it.....


----------



## dreolin

Gracie said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dreolin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll try to respect your guys service and I would appreciate the same.
> 
> I don't think either one of you know what it takes to get a round out there fast and on target and I was in a FDC where I had to sometimes calculate data for three gun batteries at once because we didn't have anyone else to do the job.  Having capable women in those positions would have saved lives.
> 
> Have either one of you been in an FDC in your lives?
> 
> We can talk about FOs later if you want, but it ain't pretty, and again, women in those positions would have saveed lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my time, (and in the Marine Corps) FDC personnel were commissioned officers.  I was enlisted.
> 
> As for women in combat zones -- I am completely opposed to that idea except as a very last resort.  As long as an able-bodied man is available, the front lines are no place for any woman.  And I'm not interested in any opposing argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For a long time, I have said women should be allowed in combat zones...but...if those women can't even do THREE PULLUPS...then maybe I have been wrong. How are they going to pull one of their own, if that person gets hit and needs to be removed to a safer spot? They can't. So women in combat zones are fine..if they are not on the front lines. Maybe on radio, maybe doing medical aid, maybe mechanical things since their hands are smaller and can fit in tighter spots in engines, etc. Even firing weapons. But out there, in the midst of it all? Not so sure now. Especially since I just read that 45% of the women wanting to be in combat couldn't even do three pullups. Hell, I could do that at forty when my hands were still functioning. Not so much now. But those women that join the service..they are young. NOT EVEN THREE???
Click to expand...


We had a gguy in my unit, he was huge,,,6'4 i think and 250 lbs. I he was hit, no one was carrying him out but me and my scrawny 1st sgt woulda gpt it done.

I don't know where you are getting this "3 pull ups" nonsense but I am not quite sure how it applies. The military will set standards and they will be complied with. Standards are always re-evaluated to meet the needs of an ever changing military.

I know when I was a troop, I wanted all the tools I could have at my disposal and it wouldn't matter to me if the troop helping was gay or a woman.

Also, Gracie, if you want to prohibit someone based on gender, it is really no difference than prohibitions based upon race.

Women can and will be serving in combat MOSes, and the military will be different, but better for it.


----------



## dreolin

SFC Ollie said:


> And those of us with common fucking sense will not accept it.....



Were you really that kind of troop? I don't think so?

I may not have liked things but I accepted things and was dedicated to accomplishing the mission no matter what my personal opinion was...and the mission is to have women integrated to combat line units by 2016.


----------



## Gracie

Do I have to find the link just to make you understand where I got the 45%? I might..if I feel like it.

WOMEN WHO CANNOT PULL THEIR OWN WEIGHT UP 3 TIMES CANNOT PULL OR DRAG A FELLOW SOLDIER OUT OF HARMS WAY. PERIOD.
Women can do A LOT of things. The military WILL benefit from them, yes. But in the front lines where men are being shot down, MAJOR injuries who cannot walk themselves...a woman that can't do ONLY 3 PULLUPS will NOT be able to sling that guy over her shoulder and haul him out, OR pull him with just her arms and leg strength. No way, no how. They should not be in the midst of the fighting. They should be using their eyes and snipering the FUCK out of the enemy, with radios at hand, grenades, rocket launchers or whatever is at their disposal. Physically? NOT ON THE FRONT LINES.

Understand now? Or do I need to shout more?


----------



## Gracie

Marines delay female fitness plan after half fail - DC News FOX 5 DC WTTG



> WASHINGTON (AP) - More than half of female Marines in boot camp can't do three pullups, the minimum standard that was supposed to take effect with the new year, prompting the Marine Corps to delay the requirement, part of the process of equalizing physical standards to integrate women into combat jobs.
> 
> The delay rekindled sharp debate in the military on the question of whether women have the physical strength for some military jobs, as service branches move toward opening thousands of combat roles to them in 2016.
> 
> Although no new timetable has been set on the delayed physical requirement, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos wants training officials to "continue to gather data and ensure that female Marines are provided with the best opportunity to succeed," Capt. Maureen Krebs, a Marine spokeswoman, said Thursday.
> 
> *Starting with the new year, all female Marines were supposed to be able to do at least three pullups on their annual physical fitness test and eight for a perfect score. The requirement was tested in 2013 on female recruits at Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, S.C., but only 45 percent of women met the minimum, Krebs said.*



There. happy now?


----------



## MikeK

Gracie said:


> Marines delay female fitness plan after half fail - DC News FOX 5 DC WTTG
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON (AP) - More than half of female Marines in boot camp can't do three pullups, the minimum standard that was supposed to take effect with the new year, prompting the Marine Corps to delay the requirement, part of the process of equalizing physical standards to integrate women into combat jobs.
> 
> The delay rekindled sharp debate in the military on the question of whether women have the physical strength for some military jobs, as service branches move toward opening thousands of combat roles to them in 2016.
> 
> Although no new timetable has been set on the delayed physical requirement, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos wants training officials to "continue to gather data and ensure that female Marines are provided with the best opportunity to succeed," Capt. Maureen Krebs, a Marine spokeswoman, said Thursday.
> 
> *Starting with the new year, all female Marines were supposed to be able to do at least three pullups on their annual physical fitness test and eight for a perfect score. The requirement was tested in 2013 on female recruits at Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, S.C., but only 45 percent of women met the minimum, Krebs said.*
> 
> 
> 
> And this 2013 trial was not the first time the Corps evaluated women for assignment to combat line companies.  I recall they did it back in '57 or '58 (while I was in) and it was shown that women cannot endure the kind of physical and mental stresses imposed by sustained combat conditions.  I recall the Commandant saying our women Marines have cause for pride in their existing performances but they should "leave the hard and dirty stuff to the men until there are no more men left to do it."
> 
> This notion some women have that they are physically and psychologically equal to men is for the most part the effect of feminist propaganda which is based entirely on extremely exceptional examples, such as placing an extremely masculine woman in contention with an extremely effeminate man and regarding the outcome as universally typical.  And for those who might misunderstand the implications of what I've said, please be assured that in many ways the differences between the two gender are in accord with Nature's design and are positive rather than negative.  It doesn't mean men are better than women but are simply _different_.  And any suggestion that asserting the difference is equal to racism is paranoid absurdity.
Click to expand...


----------



## Kondor3

MikeK said:


> "..._any suggestion that asserting the difference is equal to racism is paranoid absurdity._"


----------



## dreolin

Gracie said:


> Do I have to find the link just to make you understand where I got the 45%? I might..if I feel like it.
> 
> WOMEN WHO CANNOT PULL THEIR OWN WEIGHT UP 3 TIMES CANNOT PULL OR DRAG A FELLOW SOLDIER OUT OF HARMS WAY. PERIOD.
> Women can do A LOT of things. The military WILL benefit from them, yes. But in the front lines where men are being shot down, MAJOR injuries who cannot walk themselves...a woman that can't do ONLY 3 PULLUPS will NOT be able to sling that guy over her shoulder and haul him out, OR pull him with just her arms and leg strength. No way, no how. They should not be in the midst of the fighting. They should be using their eyes and snipering the FUCK out of the enemy, with radios at hand, grenades, rocket launchers or whatever is at their disposal. Physically? NOT ON THE FRONT LINES.
> 
> Understand now? Or do I need to shout more?



Shout all you want. Women do that when they don't get their way. They are far more emotionally erratic than men.  

How is that?

Ya know, I am going to have a no problem calling a woman in and saying "I'm sorry. You have not met the physical requirements for this position" and then maybe encouraging er to try again.

I am not going to have such an easy time saying "I'm sorry, hon. We cannot consider you for this position because Sally couldn't do more than three pull ups last year. Oh, before you leave, dear, how about pouring me another cup of coffee.

Don't mean a thing to me. I don't have a daughter which is good because I wouldn't have a good explanation to give to her as to why she couldn't do something so she shouldn't even try.

Be all you can be...

unless your a chick, and then be all we will let you be and don't even try to think beyond that.


----------



## Gracie

dreolin said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do I have to find the link just to make you understand where I got the 45%? I might..if I feel like it.
> 
> WOMEN WHO CANNOT PULL THEIR OWN WEIGHT UP 3 TIMES CANNOT PULL OR DRAG A FELLOW SOLDIER OUT OF HARMS WAY. PERIOD.
> Women can do A LOT of things. The military WILL benefit from them, yes. But in the front lines where men are being shot down, MAJOR injuries who cannot walk themselves...a woman that can't do ONLY 3 PULLUPS will NOT be able to sling that guy over her shoulder and haul him out, OR pull him with just her arms and leg strength. No way, no how. They should not be in the midst of the fighting. They should be using their eyes and snipering the FUCK out of the enemy, with radios at hand, grenades, rocket launchers or whatever is at their disposal. Physically? NOT ON THE FRONT LINES.
> 
> Understand now? Or do I need to shout more?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shout all you want. Women do that when they don't get their way. They are far more emotionally erratic than men.
> 
> How is that?
> 
> Ya know, I am going to have a no problem calling a woman in and saying "I'm sorry. You have not met the physical requirements for this position" and then maybe encouraging er to try again.
> 
> I am not going to have such an easy time saying "I'm sorry, hon. We cannot consider you for this position because Sally couldn't do more than three pull ups last year. Oh, before you leave, dear, how about pouring me another cup of coffee.
> 
> Don't mean a thing to me. I don't have a daughter which is good because I wouldn't have a good explanation to give to her as to why she couldn't do something so she shouldn't even try.
> 
> Be all you can be...
> 
> unless your a chick, and then be all we will let you be and don't even try to think beyond that.
Click to expand...


You missed my point.


----------



## Gracie

> Shout all you want. Women do that when they don't get their way. They are far more emotionally erratic than men.



Careful there. That broad brush might get too heavy for ya to carry around.


----------



## dreolin

Gracie said:


> Shout all you want. Women do that when they don't get their way. They are far more emotionally erratic than men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Careful there. That broad brush might get too heavy for ya to carry around.
Click to expand...


And you obviously missed my point.

I am not the one advocating prohibiting women from certain positions solely based upon their gender. All I did was show you what is included in those gender stereotypes.


----------



## Edgetho

patrickcaturday said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have called in dozens of Artillery strikes on Map Coordinates alone.  In combat
> 
> With me sometimes a 100 meters from where they landed.  Talk about 'pucker factor'.  I usually asked for a smoke round first.....  One with a different color than the other so I could adjust fire.  We had two guns.  Montagnards on both.  Neither one was literate.  Simple, "left, right, up, down" worked for me.  "Drop 100, Up 100, east, west 100" etc works.
> 
> Sure, it's better to use 'mils' and all that other FO bullshit but not everybody operates that way.  You're talking about a Unit whose feet are stuck in the sand.
> 
> We were a fast-moving, highly aggressive Unit that nobody knew where we were until we told them.  Sometimes, even we didn't know where we were.  Which was another good use for calling in Artillery using map coordinates.
> 
> "Hey Sam.  Where da fuck are we?"
> 
> "Beats me, we was running so fast, I have no idea where we are."
> 
> "Cool.  I'll call in a locating round about 'here'.
> 
> And we'd shoot an azimuth off of that
> 
> And I (they) could put a round in your hip pocket from 6 or 7 miles away.  In minutes.
> 
> I have also called in/worked with Spads (A-1 Skyraider) Super Sabres, Cobras, Puff the Magic Dragon (aka; Spooky) (I swear to God, those guys were drunk) and F4s, which suck.  Really suck.  And regular Huey Gunships.
> 
> The Air Force, it was harder to get their Freq.  Fly Boys......
> 
> I tried to call in a strike from some 4th ID Artillery 175mm in Pleiku one time, and they were worse than fucking useless.  We were out of range of our guys.  Which happened a lot.
> 
> They had to make sure there were no Helicopters, Aircraft (ours, the Vietnamese and whoever else), Sea Gulls, etc in the air and by the time they checked all that bullshit, we were completely out of the area, running our asses off.
> 
> I'm sure that you guys knew/know what you were doing, but you weren't any good to us.  At all.
> 
> When we needed Artillery, we needed it Right.Fucking.Now.
> 
> Oh, used to crack me up.......  When the 4th ID sent out a Company sized unit, or even a Patrol, they'd turn the Artillery in the direction the Patrol was headed in.
> 
> I'm like, "Guys, why not just tell Charlie where you're going so he can have a nice fucking ambush waiting for you?"
> 
> I absolutely refused to work with regular units.  Don't take this personal like or anything, but you guys were a bigger threat to American Troops than you were to the enemy half the time.
> 
> I'll settle for the old-fashioned 4 digit maps.
> 
> Worked every time.  I have a HUGE amount of respect for cartographers.  Good at what they do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *You know I was never in the military but I do know something about what you guys are talking about.  Edgetho, I got to call it the way I see it , I took a map reading course in ROTC and if that was really the way that you called in artillery support then it is no wonder you don't like the artillery.  For one thing I think your instructions are not standard.  I also know that most vets don't talk as easily as you seem to about their war experiences.  Sorry just the way I see it !!!*
Click to expand...


And I think you have no idea what I did in Viet Nam.

That's okay.  Few do.  But we were an important group

And when it comes to relating what I did as an 11B4S, none of you would have any base of comparison to relate it to.

And that's okay too.

But trust me when I say, I did all those things -- And more.

One thing to always remember about a soldier's experience in combat....  All he knows is what HE experienced.

All I know about Artillery is what I experienced.  Not my MOS.  All I knew is I wanted it RIGHT NOW and I wanted it on target.

And our way worked for us.


----------



## Kondor3

dreolin said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shout all you want. Women do that when they don't get their way. They are far more emotionally erratic than men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Careful there. That broad brush might get too heavy for ya to carry around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you obviously missed my point.
> 
> I am not the one advocating prohibiting women from certain positions solely based upon their gender. *All I did was show you what is included in those gender stereotypes.*
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

You disingenuously cherry-picked the worst of gender-stereotyping, to evoke emotions designed to advance your cause.

Does advocacy for a continued barring of women in Infantry roles represent a form of gender-stereotyping?

Yes.

Absolutely.

But only with respect to physicality; not with respect to overall worth or merit of abilities or parity or subservience.

A great many folks who oppose such a proposed role for women in the Infantry are every bit as committed to egalitarianism and parity as you are; quite possibly more so, in many instances.

It's just that they have a better grip on reality and future prospects, with respect to Nature, and the Average Man and the Average Woman and their inherent physical nature and abilities.

And don't waste our time asking that '_what is an Average Woman_' question again... you know damned-well what is meant, in both a metaphorical and a statistically and medically quantifiable sense.

Not everyone who opposes women in Infantry roles is a '_go get me a beer, bitch' _type, eh?

And it's bullshit, dragging-out that redneck persona as a counterpointing tactic, in a debating context where no such manifestations are present, either explicitly or implicitly.


----------



## Edgetho

Kondor3 said:


> dreolin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Careful there. That broad brush might get too heavy for ya to carry around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you obviously missed my point.
> 
> I am not the one advocating prohibiting women from certain positions solely based upon their gender. *All I did was show you what is included in those gender stereotypes.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> You disingenuously cherry-picked the worst of gender-stereotyping, to evoke emotions designed to advance your cause.
> 
> Does advocacy for a continued barring of women in Infantry roles represent a form of gender-stereotyping?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> But only with respect to physicality; not with respect to overall worth or merit of abilities or parity or subservience.
> 
> A great many folks who oppose such a proposed role for women in the Infantry are every bit as committed to egalitarianism and parity as you are; quite possibly more so, in many instances.
> 
> It's just that they have a better grip on reality and future prospects, with respect to Nature, and the Average Man and the Average Woman and their inherent physical nature and abilities.
> 
> And don't waste our time asking that '_what is an Average Woman_' question again... you know damned-well what is meant, in both a metaphorical and a statistically and medically quantifiable sense.
> 
> Not everyone who opposes women in Infantry roles is a '_go get me a beer, bitch' _type, eh?
> 
> And it's bullshit, dragging-out that redneck persona as a counterpointing tactic, in a debating context where no such manifestations are present, either explicitly or implicitly.
Click to expand...


The Russians tried women in combat.  Didn't work.

The Israelis tried it.  Didn't work.  They have the Caracal Battalion but they're nothing more than a Border Patrol Unit.  If any real hostilities begin, they'll be pulled back, out of the way.

You act like women in combat has never been tried.  And you're a moron.

Women in combat goes all the way back to the Druids.  In fact, there's two posters in here who use the Queen of the Iceni's name as their handle.

Women in combat doesn't work.  It just doesn't work.


----------



## dreolin

Kondor3 said:


> dreolin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Careful there. That broad brush might get too heavy for ya to carry around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you obviously missed my point.
> 
> I am not the one advocating prohibiting women from certain positions solely based upon their gender. *All I did was show you what is included in those gender stereotypes.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> You disingenuously cherry-picked the worst of gender-stereotyping, to evoke emotions designed to advance your cause.
> 
> Does advocacy for a continued barring of women in Infantry roles represent a form of gender-stereotyping?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> But only with respect to physicality; not with respect to overall worth or merit of abilities or parity or subservience.
> 
> A great many folks who oppose such a proposed role for women in the Infantry are every bit as committed to egalitarianism and parity as you are; quite possibly more so, in many instances.
> 
> It's just that they have a better grip on reality and future prospects, with respect to Nature, and the Average Man and the Average Woman and their inherent physical nature and abilities.
> 
> And don't waste our time asking that '_what is an Average Woman_' question again... you know damned-well what is meant, in both a metaphorical and a statistically and medically quantifiable sense.
> 
> Not everyone who opposes women in Infantry roles is a '_go get me a beer, bitch' _type, eh?
> 
> And it's bullshit, dragging-out that redneck persona as a counterpointing tactic, in a debating context where no such manifestations are present, either explicitly or implicitly.
Click to expand...


Don't accuse me of "cherry picking" when just a day or two ago I am reading asses make comments about broken fingernails and missed hairdresser appointments.

I believe in not letting unfit troops engage in certain MOSes, but I am not going to determine that entirely on gender in certain roles, and that is what you are doing.

And I was illustrating a point anyway and not stereotyping.

I knew plenty of 11s who would have sucked at hand to hand but brought other skills to the table that were sorely needed.

To me, saying you can't do something because you are a woman holds about as much water as saying you cannot so something because you are black.

And again, stereotypes work for groups, not for individuals.


----------



## Smilodonfatalis

More than half of female Marines in boot camp can't do 3 pullups - San Jose Mercury News

I'm a 51 year old man.

This morning I did 60 pullups, rested 2 minutes then did 10 more, jogged in place for 10 minutes, then did 35 more, jogged in place for 10 minutes, and did 35 again.

They shouldn't lower physical standards just so women can get promoted in combat units.


----------



## SFC Ollie

And the OP still stands.......


----------



## dreolin

SFC Ollie said:


> And the OP still stands.......



Not really...maybe for about a year.

This part does..."Ladies and gentlemen, for the first time I can honestly say that's not my military and I'm glad I'm out........"

Ya know, I have the greatest appreciation for old vets, I'm one myself, but a person, a society, and a military that cannot adapt to change doesn't last very long and just gets in the way.

I can say this in all honesty.,,if women had been allowed to serve in my combat unit in Vietnam, lives would have been saved...but what the hell...what does a few American lives matter when there is a macho image to maintain.

The target date is "by 2016". Support it or get out of the way, because you aren't going to change it, and a good troopie supports their command.


----------



## Katzndogz

The liberal way to deal with this is to lowee the standards for the men too.  Just the way it was done to weaken the police departments.


----------



## 1776

Liberals want to gut the military so letting flamers flame in the open and putting women in combat roles is meant to drive out the real troops, making us Canada. 

They want the US military to work under UN mandate so downsizing the military and making it weak moves them closer to that goal.

Next they will go after the Academies shutting down 2 of them as GOV waste forcing them into 1 Academy ignoring the differences between the Navy, Army and Air Force.


----------



## Kondor3

Katzndogz said:


> _The liberal way to deal with this is to lowee the standards for the men too.  Just the way it was done to weaken the police departments._


'Hyper-egalitarians' will figure this out once (1) women in Infantry become commonplace and represent a good-sized percentage of our power in the field, and (2) we get our asses kicked good-and-proper in the field; attributable to the inferior quality of our infantry troops.

By then, of course, it will be too late, and the rest of us - the entire country - will be fucked, but, at least, the hyper-egalitarians will have the satisfaction of having played by the letter of the Laws of Man - while ignoring the Laws of Nature - on the way to our demise.

If we (as a Nation) are stupid enough to let them go through with it, that is.


----------



## SFC Ollie

dreolin said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the OP still stands.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really...maybe for about a year.
> 
> This part does..."Ladies and gentlemen, for the first time I can honestly say that's not my military and I'm glad I'm out........"
> 
> Ya know, I have the greatest appreciation for old vets, I'm one myself, but a person, a society, and a military that cannot adapt to change doesn't last very long and just gets in the way.
> 
> I can say this in all honesty.,,if women had been allowed to serve in my combat unit in Vietnam, lives would have been saved...but what the hell...what does a few American lives matter when there is a macho image to maintain.
> 
> The target date is "by 2016". Support it or get out of the way, because you aren't going to change it, and a good troopie supports their command.
Click to expand...


Horseshit.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Kondor3 said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> _The liberal way to deal with this is to lowee the standards for the men too.  Just the way it was done to weaken the police departments._
> 
> 
> 
> 'Hyper-egalitarians' will figure this out once (1) women in Infantry become commonplace and represent a good-sized percentage of our power in the field, and (2) we get our asses kicked good-and-proper in the field; attributable to the inferior quality of our infantry troops.
> 
> By then, of course, it will be too late, and the rest of us - the entire country - will be fucked, but, at least, the hyper-egalitarians will have the satisfaction of having played by the letter of the Laws of Man - while ignoring the Laws of Nature - on the way to our demise.
> 
> If we (as a Nation) are stupid enough to let them go through with it, that is.
Click to expand...


Problem is that most all politicians will be afraid to fight it because they don't want to loose the votes. And the Generals don't want to be told to retire......We are fucked.


----------



## OriginalShroom

It's "gender norming"....

They expect anyone shooting at U.S. troops to give female troops extra time to run away.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Smilodonfatalis said:


> More than half of female Marines in boot camp can't do 3 pullups - San Jose Mercury News
> 
> I'm a 51 year old man.
> 
> This morning I did 60 pullups, rested 2 minutes then did 10 more, jogged in place for 10 minutes, then did 35 more, jogged in place for 10 minutes, and did 35 again.
> 
> They shouldn't lower physical standards just so women can get promoted in combat units.



Don't believe you did 10% of that.


----------



## Chuckt

Smilodonfatalis said:


> More than half of female Marines in boot camp can't do 3 pullups - San Jose Mercury News
> 
> I'm a 51 year old man.
> 
> This morning I did 60 pullups, rested 2 minutes then did 10 more, jogged in place for 10 minutes, then did 35 more, jogged in place for 10 minutes, and did 35 again.
> 
> They shouldn't lower physical standards just so women can get promoted in combat units.



Were you in the service?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

I never could do a lot of pull ups. I managed the max for the test which is 20 with a kip. Straight arm I could probably do 7 max. I knew a lot of Marines that couldn't do 20 pull ups.

Women were required to do a bent arm hang up till now. Think 30 seconds was max or something like that.

Now a days there is no kipping, you must do straight up straight down no swing no arching your back.

I do not believe standards should be lowered but is this the only way to test strength of the upper body? As I recall the Army did not even do pull ups. they did push ups?


----------



## gipper

I am 56 and do 60-70 pull ups every other day in sets of 10-15.  Then do 100 push ups and 300 sit ups.  No problems.

What was it the critics said about letting women in the USMC?  They warned about just what is now happening.  This is just another example of the ignorance of Liberalism.


----------



## Kondor3

We don't need women in Infantry roles, which is where this is leading.

Admin roles? Support roles? Logistics roles? No problem.

Fighter-jock roles? Artie roles? Armor roles? OK - with reservations.

Infantry?

Suicide for the female, and any male unfortunate enough to be deployed alongside her, if it gets down to hand-to-hand combat.


----------



## CMike

As long as the military is stylish that is what is important.


----------



## SFC Ollie

RetiredGySgt said:


> I never could do a lot of pull ups. I managed the max for the test which is 20 with a kip. Straight arm I could probably do 7 max. I knew a lot of Marines that couldn't do 20 pull ups.
> 
> Women were required to do a bent arm hang up till now. Think 30 seconds was max or something like that.
> 
> Now a days there is no kipping, you must do straight up straight down no swing no arching your back.
> 
> I do not believe standards should be lowered but is this the only way to test strength of the upper body? As I recall the Army did not even do pull ups. they did push ups?



When I retired in 93 the Army Physical fitness test consisted of 2 minute2 of sit ups, 2 minutes of Pushups, and a 2 mile run.

There were different standards for male, female, and age.... I always tried to pass within the bracket for the lowest age group. Usually made it....


----------



## SFC Ollie

And let's not even think about how a female POW might be treated........


----------



## Vikrant

SFC Ollie said:


> And let's not even think about how a female POW might be treated........



Why do you think a male POW will be treated any better?


----------



## Kondor3

Vikrant said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> And let's not even think about how a female POW might be treated........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Why do you think a male POW will be treated any better?_
Click to expand...

Approximately 3% of the population are Gay, so, approximately 3% of male enemy soldiers are included in the baseline of those at-risk of raping a male soldier...

Approximately 97% of the population are Straight, so, approximately 97% of male enemy soldiers are included in the baseline of those at-risk of raping a female soldier...

An _overwhelming_, quantifiable, defensible statistical potential, is it not?

Odds, averages and common sense...


----------



## Smilodonfatalis

Chuckt said:


> Smilodonfatalis said:
> 
> 
> 
> More than half of female Marines in boot camp can't do 3 pullups - San Jose Mercury News
> 
> I'm a 51 year old man.
> 
> This morning I did 60 pullups, rested 2 minutes then did 10 more, jogged in place for 10 minutes, then did 35 more, jogged in place for 10 minutes, and did 35 again.
> 
> They shouldn't lower physical standards just so women can get promoted in combat units.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were you in the service?
Click to expand...


No, I was in ROTC for 2 quarters in college.  

I decided against a career in the military because they don't allow marijuana smoking.

However, I may have made a mistake.  I had a friend who joined the army (circa 1982) and he said the barracks were full of drugs.


----------



## dreolin

Kondor3 said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> And let's not even think about how a female POW might be treated........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Why do you think a male POW will be treated any better?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Approximately 3% of the population are Gay, so, approximately 3% of male enemy soldiers are included in the baseline of those at-risk of raping a male soldier...
> 
> Approximately 97% of the population are Straight, so, approximately 97% of male enemy soldiers are included in the baseline of those at-risk of raping a female soldier...
> 
> An _overwhelming_, quantifiable, defensible statistical potential, is it not?
> 
> Odds, averages and common sense...
Click to expand...


It seems you are lacking in all three.


----------



## dreolin

RetiredGySgt said:


> I never could do a lot of pull ups. I managed the max for the test which is 20 with a kip. Straight arm I could probably do 7 max. I knew a lot of Marines that couldn't do 20 pull ups.
> 
> Women were required to do a bent arm hang up till now. Think 30 seconds was max or something like that.
> 
> Now a days there is no kipping, you must do straight up straight down no swing no arching your back.
> 
> I do not believe standards should be lowered but is this the only way to test strength of the upper body? As I recall the Army did not even do pull ups. they did push ups?



The reason women cannot do pull ups is not because they are less strong, but because they are anatomically diferent. it  is the same reasons that taller men can do less pull ups than short men. You all can look it up. Basically, it is a function of relative arm length in relation to height.

If they tested or flexibility, woman would do better than men. What we have are women being held to standards in tests designed to measure men's "strength" and these tests are designed by men.

It is pretty silly. I would be the first to say all soldiers should be fit for combat but, first of all, hand to hand combat situations very, very rarely occur. Secondly, I don't ever recall there being a pull up face off on the battlefield.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Edgetho said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dreolin said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you obviously missed my point.
> 
> I am not the one advocating prohibiting women from certain positions solely based upon their gender. *All I did was show you what is included in those gender stereotypes.*
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> You disingenuously cherry-picked the worst of gender-stereotyping, to evoke emotions designed to advance your cause.
> 
> Does advocacy for a continued barring of women in Infantry roles represent a form of gender-stereotyping?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> But only with respect to physicality; not with respect to overall worth or merit of abilities or parity or subservience.
> 
> A great many folks who oppose such a proposed role for women in the Infantry are every bit as committed to egalitarianism and parity as you are; quite possibly more so, in many instances.
> 
> It's just that they have a better grip on reality and future prospects, with respect to Nature, and the Average Man and the Average Woman and their inherent physical nature and abilities.
> 
> And don't waste our time asking that '_what is an Average Woman_' question again... you know damned-well what is meant, in both a metaphorical and a statistically and medically quantifiable sense.
> 
> Not everyone who opposes women in Infantry roles is a '_go get me a beer, bitch' _type, eh?
> 
> And it's bullshit, dragging-out that redneck persona as a counterpointing tactic, in a debating context where no such manifestations are present, either explicitly or implicitly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Russians tried women in combat.  Didn't work.
> 
> The Israelis tried it.  Didn't work.  They have the Caracal Battalion but they're nothing more than a Border Patrol Unit.  If any real hostilities begin, they'll be pulled back, out of the way.
> 
> You act like women in combat has never been tried.  And you're a moron.
> 
> Women in combat goes all the way back to the Druids.  In fact, there's two posters in here who use the Queen of the Iceni's name as their handle.
> 
> Women in combat doesn't work.  It just doesn't work.
Click to expand...


The Israeli and USSR experiences in their wars clearly indicate your opinion has no merit.


----------



## Katzndogz

If the women cannot do three pullups, why can't they?   I was at the gym yesterday and must have seen ten women on three different racks doing pullups in sets of 10.

If housewives and cheerleaders are stronger than our marines we really do have a helluva problem.


----------



## MikeK

Vikrant said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> And let's not even think about how a female POW might be treated........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think a male POW will be treated any better?
Click to expand...

Not better.  But different in ways we don't care to think of our women being treated.  That is one very important reason why we able-bodied American men should be concerned with protecting our women -- not sending them into armed combat against men.

It is an instinct, not a political policy.


----------



## SFC Ollie

We have a problem regardless. our military is half what it used to be. And I'm not talking numbers....

The enemies of the USA are watching and smiling.......


----------



## MikeK

Smilodonfatalis said:


> Chuckt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Smilodonfatalis said:
> 
> 
> 
> More than half of female Marines in boot camp can't do 3 pullups - San Jose Mercury News
> 
> I'm a 51 year old man.
> 
> This morning I did 60 pullups, rested 2 minutes then did 10 more, jogged in place for 10 minutes, then did 35 more, jogged in place for 10 minutes, and did 35 again.
> 
> They shouldn't lower physical standards just so women can get promoted in combat units.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were you in the service?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I was in ROTC for 2 quarters in college.
> 
> I decided against a career in the military because they don't allow marijuana smoking.
> 
> However, I may have made a mistake.  I had a friend who joined the army (circa 1982) and he said the barracks were full of drugs.
Click to expand...

The first time I ever smoked marijuana was Christmas Eve on Okinawa, 1957.  The mama-sans who came on base to do our laundry sold the most fantastic weed which I later realized was extremely high potency purple indica ("skunk").  That stuff was so resinous it ran down the paper of a burning joint and stuck to the fingers.  Two or three hits would toast you.  Any more would bake you and your feet would be glued to the deck.  

They sold a tightly rolled, cloth-wrapped ball of cleaned bud the size of a baseball (about three ounces) for a five dollar U.S. greenback dollar or five cartons of Pall Mall cigarettes (a dollar a carton in the PX).  Today I'm sure that same amount would cost well over five-hundred dollars.

Interestingly, while there were constant lectures, warnings, and threats urging us to avoid patronizing the liberty town prostitutes because of the rampant gonorrhea on Okinawa, and drinking too much booze because of the rampant drunkenness, there was never a word about the marijuana.


----------



## SFC Ollie

I processed many a troop out of the Military for drug use in my time....


----------



## dreolin

SFC Ollie said:


> We have a problem regardless. our military is half what it used to be. And I'm not talking numbers....
> 
> The enemies of the USA are watching and smiling.......



Weren't you just strutting and crowing the other day about how you support our troops?

Now you imply they are half of what troops were in your day.

My son respected my service. I respect his today.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Never have i disrespected any individuals service.....

Do try again.....


----------



## Gracie

Nobody is saying women should NOT be in the military. What is being said is, if they cannot keep up with the men PHYSICALLY, then they should put their skills (of which there are many) in other venues while in the service.

If I were a man, packing 140 lbs of gear, and myself, into a dangerous situation, I damn sure wouldn't want a woman in the middle of it because if I get hit, how the hell is she going to get me OUT physically? I would want her out of target range of said enemy..with her sharp shooting eye blasting the hell out of someone coming at me. I would want her to get on the radio and give coordinates on where to aim the next rocket. I would want her in the heli, ready to fly my ass out of there or bring in help for my platoon. In short...again...women are a big asset to the military. Just not where they have to drag 250 lbs out of harms way when they can't even do 3 pullups.


----------



## Gracie

Unless, of course, it is a platoon of nothing but women. Then yeah. Let her go into combat. If I can drag a woman hundreds of feet..she better damn well be able to drag my ass the same distance.


----------



## Vikrant

Kondor3 said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> And let's not even think about how a female POW might be treated........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Why do you think a male POW will be treated any better?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Approximately 3% of the population are Gay, so, approximately 3% of male enemy soldiers are included in the baseline of those at-risk of raping a male soldier...
> 
> Approximately 97% of the population are Straight, so, approximately 97% of male enemy soldiers are included in the baseline of those at-risk of raping a female soldier...
> 
> An _overwhelming_, quantifiable, defensible statistical potential, is it not?
> 
> Odds, averages and common sense...
Click to expand...


A male POW can be tortured or beheaded which is not any less gruesome than rape of a female POW.


----------



## MikeK

SFC Ollie said:


> I processed many a troop out of the Military for drug use in my time....


Were you aware at the time, or are you not aware now, that alcohol is by far the most destructively addictive drug of all?  And, yes, beverage alcohol is indeed a drug!

One thing I failed to mention about the marijuana use on Okinawa is after getting nicely toasted one wakes up well-rested with absolutely no after-effect (hangover).  But some of the booze drinkers often were barely able to make morning formation.  

So when you say "drug use" it is grossly inaccurate not to include alcohol.  Because while drinking alcohol kills hundreds of thousands of Americans annually, and makes hundreds of thousands more very sick, there is not one example anywhere in the annals of medical science of marijuana killing or harming anyone in any way.  So while I can't speak for other recreational substances, if you "processed out" any for pot use you wasted a lot of perfectly useful soldiers -- unless we are talking about otherwise totally degenerate personalities.


----------



## MikeK

Vikrant said:


> A male POW can be tortured or beheaded which is not any less gruesome than rape of a female POW.


Of course it's not less gruesome.  But male resistance to women in the military is rooted in a primal instinct.  

Recalling the final scene in the movie, _Full Metal Jacket,_ in which the female Viet Cong sniper was shot and lay dying, if that sniper had been a male rather than a female it is likely those Marines would have kicked him to death or let him suffer.  But the merciful pause attending the decision to end the female enemy's suffering was an expression of the protective male/female instinct I'm talking about.  While there are exceptions, it is generally rooted in the primitive component of the male brain and functions at a pre-conscious level.


----------



## JakeStarkey

SFC Ollie said:


> We have a problem regardless. our military is half what it used to be. And I'm not talking numbers....
> 
> The enemies of the USA are watching and smiling.......



Disagree.  Go online, watch the vids, read up on the manuals and the training regs.

These troopers and grunts and swabbies and flyguys are very very good.


----------



## Kondor3

MikeK said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> A male POW can be tortured or beheaded which is not any less gruesome than rape of a female POW.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's not less gruesome.  But *male resistance to women in the military is rooted in a primal instinc*t.
> 
> Recalling the final scene in the movie, _Full Metal Jacket,_ in which the female Viet Cong sniper was shot and lay dying, if that sniper had been a male rather than a female it is likely those Marines would have kicked him to death or let him suffer.  But the merciful pause attending the decision to end the female enemy's suffering was an expression of *the protective male/female instinct* I'm talking about.  While there are exceptions, *it is generally rooted in the primitive component of the male brain and functions at a pre-conscious level.*
Click to expand...







With all the implications that has for reactions and reaction-times on the battlefield...


----------



## SFC Ollie

MikeK said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I processed many a troop out of the Military for drug use in my time....
> 
> 
> 
> Were you aware at the time, or are you not aware now, that alcohol is by far the most destructively addictive drug of all?  And, yes, beverage alcohol is indeed a drug!
> 
> One thing I failed to mention about the marijuana use on Okinawa is after getting nicely toasted one wakes up well-rested with absolutely no after-effect (hangover).  But some of the booze drinkers often were barely able to make morning formation.
> 
> So when you say "drug use" it is grossly inaccurate not to include alcohol.  Because while drinking alcohol kills hundreds of thousands of Americans annually, and makes hundreds of thousands more very sick, there is not one example anywhere in the annals of medical science of marijuana killing or harming anyone in any way.  So while I can't speak for other recreational substances, if you "processed out" any for pot use you wasted a lot of perfectly useful soldiers -- unless we are talking about otherwise totally degenerate personalities.
Click to expand...


Illegal drug use.....You knew what I was referring to, though there was one drunk that we ended up putting a bar to re-elistment on... He was a happy drunk and a worthless Sergeant. And pot was and is an illegal drug, yes if they tested positive in a training company they went home, in permanent party they had a chance for rehab. SO no one ever hurt themselves or someone else while under the influence of marijuana? Are you that certain of that? You are smarter than that I know....


----------



## SFC Ollie

JakeStarkey said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a problem regardless. our military is half what it used to be. And I'm not talking numbers....
> 
> The enemies of the USA are watching and smiling.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disagree.  Go online, watch the vids, read up on the manuals and the training regs.
> 
> These troopers and grunts and swabbies and flyguys are very very good.
Click to expand...


How about talking to them up front and personal at the VA or in any of the numerous veteran organization meetings i attend?


----------



## BlackSand

Women have already entered combat relative MOS's albeit under pilot programs designed to ascertain capabilities.

In these instances they are required to meet whatever physical standards are currently required of their male counterparts.
It should also be noted that women who want these positions are often required to go above and beyond the minimum in job performance ... Although that may not be the case for physical standards.
The Physical Test for women in these MOS's is identical to those of males with the same job regarding minimum requirements.

I don't have a problem with expecting the job requirement to have basic guidelines that apply to both genders ... But I am against relaxing the standards to be more inclusive towards women.

As far as combat association between the genders in real-time application ... There is no difference in the way women view their responsibility and role as a soldier.
Some men do go beyond the level of due concern with a desire to protect their female counterparts ... But it is no different than female firefighters or police officers.
As females in a combat related role ... There are no special privileges or accommodations made for specific female matters ... You are expected to be a troop no matter what ... 
Same as any male.

The whole thing stinks of the general politics that has invaded the military and distracted the Armed Services from their primary mission to serve.
Just more social engineering that will sacrifice superiority in attempts to impose equality through weakness. 

.


----------



## gipper

BlackSand said:


> Women have already entered combat relative MOS's albeit under pilot programs designed to ascertain capabilities.
> 
> In these instances they are required to meet whatever physical standards are currently required of their male counterparts.
> It should also be noted that women who want these positions are often required to go above and beyond the minimum in job performance ... Although that may not be the case for physical standards.
> The Physical Test for women in these MOS's is identical to those of males with the same job regarding minimum requirements.
> 
> I don't have a problem with expecting the job requirement to have basic guidelines that apply to both genders ... But I am against relaxing the standards to be more inclusive towards women.
> 
> As far as combat association between the genders in real-time application ... There is no difference in the way women view their responsibility and role as a soldier.
> Some men do go beyond the level of due concern with a desire to protect their female counterparts ... But it is no different than female firefighters or police officers.
> As females in a combat related role ... There are no special privileges or accommodations made for specific female matters ... You are expected to be a troop no matter what ...
> Same as any male.
> 
> The whole thing stinks of the general politics that has invaded the military and distracted the Armed Services from their primary mission to serve.
> Just more social engineering that will sacrifice superiority in attempts to impose equality through weakness.
> 
> .



Those last two sentences sum it up nicely.  The powers that be have politicized the military and the consequences will not be pretty.


----------



## Chuckt

Katzndogz said:


> If the women cannot do three pullups, why can't they?   I was at the gym yesterday and must have seen ten women on three different racks doing pullups in sets of 10.
> 
> If housewives and cheerleaders are stronger than our marines we really do have a helluva problem.



I was told they put out that misinformation because they don't want a lot of females in the military.  They can do more than 3 pullups.


----------



## Chuckt

Chuckt said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the women cannot do three pullups, why can't they?   I was at the gym yesterday and must have seen ten women on three different racks doing pullups in sets of 10.
> 
> If housewives and cheerleaders are stronger than our marines we really do have a helluva problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was told they put out that misinformation because they don't want a lot of females in the military.  They can do more than 3 pullups.
Click to expand...



 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xD16NgqUPio]Bar Brutes Women's pull-up competition - Nov - YouTube[/ame]

I just saw a woman do over 10 pullups and these are just women off the street.  So the report is just a lot of brain washing.  They don't want women in the military.


----------



## gipper

There have been women in the military for decades.

So how is it the military does not want women?


----------



## Moonglow

SFC Ollie said:


> U.S. Army trainers will soon lead an effort to create gender-neutral physical standards for all soldiers as part of a plan to allow women to serve in infantry, Special Forces and other combat arms jobs.
> Army Submits Plan to Open Combat Jobs for Women | Military.com
> 
> 
> Translation: We will now lower the standards for everyone so that women can qualify the same as the men, who won't have to work as hard as they used to.
> 
> Ladies and gentlemen, for the first time I can honestly say that's not my military and I'm glad I'm out........
> 
> This is just one more step in the downward spiral of this once great country....
> 
> It's sad.




I bet you wish they still had a real training program where they could beat and dog a soldier until they died.....


----------



## eagle1462010

No lower standards for the combat infantry MOS's PERIOD.

If they can't meet the standards then they shouldn't be in the unit.  A unit is only as strong as it's weakest link, and putting those in the unit who don't muster up can get the others killed.

In areas where they don't require humping many miles with heavy packs it's not a problem.


----------



## eagle1462010

Riddle me this...................

Would you want to send an all Female Marine Company into the worst to offer in Afghanistan's mountains....................Pull packs for an extended stay....................


----------



## eagle1462010

Now to tick off the liberal and those who call us sexist...............

In the Navy, which women can handle, we used to say catch a WAVE and Ride it............It was a simple joke when we were going out looking to get some that night.  A WAVE was a female sailor, and both sides of the equation are human and want to get some, and we did get to ride a WAVE from time to time.

In the infantry, and in combat zones, it will be the same.  They've been out there for a while and haven't had any for a while...........both parties may want to sneak off in the area to get some as it's still a matter of nature.................

Finally, women get pregnant.............I'm sure that's just a shocker to all, but where are their replacements should women get pregnant and are not able to deploy.  I've seen this in the Navy before getting out way back then.  TAD'd waiting to get out.  In the TAD Barracks it was full of pregnant women, so much so as the Barracks were referred to as the pregnancy ward.


----------



## Moonglow

You soldiers should learn to keep it in yer pants...


----------



## eagle1462010

Moonglow said:


> You soldiers should learn to keep it in yer pants...



Sex is as old as the world...........and I'm simply pointing out that young men and women are going to get horny and no amount of words are going to change that.  

Which is why I bluntly put it out there on this thread.  It has happened, still happens, and will continue to happen.  It doesn't matter what rule you type up, or the consequences of doing so to young men and women.  It is a matter of nature and thus applies to this discussion.


----------



## Chuckt

gipper said:


> There have been women in the military for decades.
> 
> So how is it the military does not want women?



Why would they lie and say that women can't do more than 3 pull-ups?

If I was a business owner and gave you goods, I would not extend credit to you unless you paid me back.  It is a simple rule.

They lied and said that women can't do more than 3 pull-ups.  Pay for the truth and say they were wrong or lied and then I'll give you more truth.

Until then, you are against me and it won't matter what I say anyway.

The women in that video don't seem to be big physical fitness experts and yet they can do more than three pull-ups.

Someone lied and it is now your turn to pay me with the truth.

See link:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/military/294070-we-knew-this-was-coming-25.html#post8733825


----------



## Chuckt

Plus it wouldn't have anything to do with this, now does it?

Senate blocks change to military sex assault cases


----------



## High_Gravity

Moonglow said:


> You soldiers should learn to keep it in yer pants...



Why?


----------



## Kondor3

Said with the greatest respect for the accomplishments and service and sacrifice of women in the US Armed Forces...

I, for one, am simply not in favor of allowing women into combat situations...

But, if 'the times' are going to steamroller over me anyway...

Personally, I would grudgingly concede...

* Women in combat flight operations
* Women in combat armor operations
* Women in combat artillery operations
* Women in combat naval operations

...BUT...

I don't want 'em in the Infantry...

* They are not strong enough
* They are not emotionally equipped
* They will suffer more if captured
* Their male comrades will take more risks to protect them

Mind you...

* I know that I'm stereotyping, and I apologize, but I'm firm in those perceptions.
* I know there are exceptions - I don't care - safety first - don't take chances
* It goes against the Egalitarian grain - I don't care - safety first - don't take chances
* I know that I don't get to make those decisions - but I felt like having my say


----------

