Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Joint Chiefs Chairman: ‘We Can Figure Out Privacy’ for Young Ladies in Frontline Combat,
CNSNews ^

Posted on 01/26/2013 9:26:55 AM PST by chessplayer

(CNSNews.com) - Gen. Martin Dempsey, President Obama’s chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Thursday that the U.S. military could figure out ways to preserve the privacy of young ladies serving in frontline combat units, including special forces combat units such as the Navy Seals and the U.S. Army’s Delta Force.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bho44; bhodod; dempsey; jointchiefs; martindempsey; privacy; usmilitary; womenincombat
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-140 next last
Wow. The Seals, Green Berets, Rangers, etc., are going to have to lower their physical standards a helluva lot. Dempsy is already assuming women will be in those units, so obviously standards will HAVE to be lowered.
1 posted on 01/26/2013 9:26:59 AM PST by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

The guy is blowing so much smoke up our ass it’s coming out our ears. What a total crock.


2 posted on 01/26/2013 9:30:04 AM PST by saganite (What happens to taglines? Is there a termination date?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Equal either means equal, or it doesn’t.


3 posted on 01/26/2013 9:32:45 AM PST by DTogo (High time to bring back The Sons of Liberty !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Bullshit. The frontline is no place to worry about privacy.


4 posted on 01/26/2013 9:34:51 AM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

What really drives me nuts is people are going to die because of this stupidity, and those responsible will not be punished for it.


5 posted on 01/26/2013 9:35:36 AM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

There HAS to be a hidden agenda the way they are pushing this. Are they: (a) trying to ensure that our military is weakened to ensure that we can be overtaken by a foreign power, (b) trying to reduce the population, (c) trying out new pharmaceuticals to see if they really kill sexual desire?, or (d) getting ready to come out with a new cheap meat alternative that tastes like chicken but is lower in cost and is always boneless; meanwhile the military has been expecting massive casualties where distracted soldiers are walking over IEDs then blown to smithereens in such fashion that they are magically disintegrated and can’t be shipped home to their family members. I know, I know...I was left alone too long as a child and developed an overactive imagination...: )


6 posted on 01/26/2013 9:36:10 AM PST by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Dempsey’s argument is completely divorced from reality, as just a small amount of honest reflection would reveal. The problem is these high-ranking generals are, for the most part, no longer soldiers but politicians themselves. They don’t want to rock the boat, as they are thinking of cushy post-retirement jobs in industry and the media. They’ve given up caring for the troops or the role of the military in our society. It’s all about licking Obama’s boots.


7 posted on 01/26/2013 9:36:52 AM PST by River Hawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

IIRC, when women were first admitted to West Point, they fared poorly when running PT with the men (all had to run in combat boots). This proved to be a little embarrassing to those who pushed for the admission of women. This problem was solved by having the cadets run in sneakers rather than combat boots.


8 posted on 01/26/2013 9:40:23 AM PST by Cowboy Bob (Soon the "invisible hand" will press the economic "reset" button.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

I’ve never been in the military. That said, privacy? On the frontlines? What are they suggesting.. portable lounges so they can powder their noses? This is so beyond stupid that it hurts my brain.


9 posted on 01/26/2013 9:40:54 AM PST by momtothree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: River Hawk

The problem is these high-ranking generals are, for the most part, no longer soldiers but politicians themselves. They don’t want to rock the boat, as they are thinking of cushy post-retirement jobs in industry and the media. They’ve given up caring for the troops or the role of the military in our society. It’s all about licking Obama’s boots.


Bingo.


10 posted on 01/26/2013 9:42:13 AM PST by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: River Hawk

You’ve summed it up perfectly. These generals and admirals are a disgrace.


11 posted on 01/26/2013 9:42:30 AM PST by JHL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jsanders2001

Maybe the goal is to destroy the protective instinct in the male because if you lose it then you will also have a diminished will to protect in general...as in protect your country, your family, your culture, your values.


12 posted on 01/26/2013 9:42:59 AM PST by Anima Mundi (Envy is just passive, lazy greed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Sadly the Joints Chiefs of Staff have devolved into politicaly correct careerists. They can no longer be viewed as the elite Warrior Council sworn to protect the nation. Armies disintegrate when common soldiers lose confidence in their leaders.


13 posted on 01/26/2013 9:43:36 AM PST by allendale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

‘We Can Figure Out Privacy’ for Young Ladies in Frontline Combat”

Yea, right.

I remember standing in two feet of muddy water in a bomb crater. Combat boots, flak jacket & helmet, otherwise stark naked, taking a bath. My buddy stood guard until we swapped & I guarded while he cleaned up.

Now we will have to pack opaque shower curtains & His and Her signs along with our ammo, chow, spare batteries, frags, dry socks, etc.

How many coed OPs and LPs will found with His & Her slit throats the next morning after their occupants were “distracted”.

Where’s Dandy Don to sing, “Turn out the Lights, the Party’s Over”? This was a great country while it lasted.


14 posted on 01/26/2013 9:43:58 AM PST by BwanaNdege ("To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize"- Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

What really drives me nuts is people are going to die because of this stupidity,


And the feminists won’t give a rats when it happens.


15 posted on 01/26/2013 9:44:05 AM PST by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Here’s an article depicting “privacy concerns” in combat.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323539804578260132111473150.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h


16 posted on 01/26/2013 9:45:04 AM PST by keats5 (Not all of us are hypnotized.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Time to form an all male new Confederate Army. Fags need not apply.


17 posted on 01/26/2013 9:45:48 AM PST by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
...Young Ladies...frontline combat...

This immoral lemming actually used the words "young ladies" and "frontline combat" in the same sentence.

No civilized place on the earth -- and no real men-- would ever allow "young ladies" to bear frontline combat.

America deserves damnation for this.

18 posted on 01/26/2013 9:46:28 AM PST by Flycatcher (God speaks to us, through the supernal lightness of birds, in a special type of poetry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

What really drives me nuts is people are going to die because of this stupidity,


And the feminists won’t give a rats when it happens. Or when the women in these units are killed, they will blame the men in the units for it.


19 posted on 01/26/2013 9:46:36 AM PST by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Oh yeah? How much privacy are the little ladies going to have when they get captured by our enemies? You thought seeing emaciated Vietnam POWs coming home was hard? Wait until it’s a tortured, abused, and raped female soldier coming down that ramp.


20 posted on 01/26/2013 9:52:38 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cowboy Bob

IIRC, when women were first admitted to West Point, they fared poorly when running PT with the men (all had to run in combat boots). This proved to be a little embarrassing to those who pushed for the admission of women. This problem was solved by having the cadets run in sneakers rather than combat boots.


That is what is meant by “gender-neutral standards.”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2982131/posts


21 posted on 01/26/2013 9:53:40 AM PST by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Well, reconsider as we need someone to hold the targets up.


22 posted on 01/26/2013 9:54:11 AM PST by Mouton (108th MI Group.....68-71)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: central_va

“Fags need not apply.”

Awww, at least let them design the uniforms. You know they’ll be fahbulous!


23 posted on 01/26/2013 9:54:17 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Any nation that will send it’s women to fight on the front lines is a dead nation.


24 posted on 01/26/2013 9:55:35 AM PST by Bryan24 (When in doubt, move to the right..........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bryan24

The Soviets did it only after the German Army was in 50 miles of its capitol. Even then, the front line of the Red Army was 99 % male. Women were mostly snipers and such.


25 posted on 01/26/2013 9:58:25 AM PST by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Bryan24

“All societies are based on rules to protect pregnant women and young children. All else is surplus age, excrescence, adornment, luxury or folly which can—and must—be dumped in emergency to preserve this prime function. As racial survival is the only universal morality, no other basic is possible. Attempts to formulate a “perfect society” on any foundation other than “women and children first!” is not only witless, it is automatically genocidal. Nevertheless, starry-eyed idealists (all of them male) have tried endlessly—and no doubt will keep on trying.”
- R.A.Heinlein


26 posted on 01/26/2013 9:58:56 AM PST by ctdonath2 (End of debate. Your move.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Remember REMFs ?

Its easy to give women in combat some privacy.

Make them REMs, rear echelon mothers.


27 posted on 01/26/2013 10:00:07 AM PST by Candor7 (Obama fascism article:(http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/barack_obama_the_quintessentia_1.html))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer; xzins

For field combat situations I suggest Extra strength Depends.

It will accomplish 2 things.

It will provide the ladies with their own private in the field latrines and keep the male soldiers from wanting to get into their pants.


28 posted on 01/26/2013 10:01:32 AM PST by P-Marlowe (There can be no Victory without a fight and no battle without wounds.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

I remember during the mid-1980s a poll was done in US Army Europe among the female soldiers: It asked, Do you think that you will be evacuated with the wives & children in case of war? 80 percent said “Yes.” so much for most females wanting to fight in the front or rear areas. This has apparently changed somewhat during the last 10 years, but I wonder what the pregnancy rate among deploying units is? How many of the female soldiers get preganant so that they will not deploy to a combat zone?


29 posted on 01/26/2013 10:05:11 AM PST by GreyFriar (Spearhead - 3rd Armored Division 75-78 & 83-87)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Time Out! Time Out!

Close your eyes, Taliban - My fighting hole buddy has to tinkle.


30 posted on 01/26/2013 10:06:18 AM PST by Iron Munro (I Miss America, don't you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: keats5

“I served in the 2003 invasion of Iraq as a Marine infantry squad leader. We rode into war crammed in the back of amphibious assault vehicles. They are designed to hold roughly 15 Marines snugly; due to maintenance issues, by the end of the invasion we had as many as 25 men stuffed into the back. Marines were forced to sit, in full gear, on each other’s laps and in contorted positions for hours on end. That was the least of our problems.”

“The invasion was a blitzkrieg. The goal was to move as fast to Baghdad as possible. The column would not stop for a lance corporal, sergeant, lieutenant, or even a company commander to go to the restroom. Sometimes we spent over 48 hours on the move without exiting the vehicles. We were forced to urinate in empty water bottles inches from our comrades.”

“Many Marines developed dysentery from the complete lack of sanitary conditions. When an uncontrollable urge hit a Marine, he would be forced to stand, as best he could, hold an MRE bag up to his rear, and defecate inches from his seated comrade’s face.”


Good article for the Joint Chiefs and feminists to read. But they assure us the women will have privacy.


31 posted on 01/26/2013 10:08:15 AM PST by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: momtothree

Guys who were Marines in WW II...landed on beaches with eighty pounds of gear. For four to six weeks...they’d hike around and launch fire-fights with the Japanese. No one showered. You might have changed socks maybe once a week, but it was harsh living conditions. After a month of this....if you were lucky...the fight was done, and you recovered back at the Navy vessel for the first shower in four weeks. If you can find one young lass out of a thousand able to tote the hundred pounds of gear and live harshly for a month like that....fine. My humble guess is that she’ll weigh 200 pounds and be tossed out shortly for being overweight by Marine standards.


32 posted on 01/26/2013 10:10:34 AM PST by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: keats5

Wow, pretty disgusting conditions. From the article:

......”Combat effectiveness is based in large part on unit cohesion. The relationships among members of a unit can be irreparably harmed by forcing them to violate societal norms. “

Spot on observation by the author.


33 posted on 01/26/2013 10:11:11 AM PST by Girlene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
I hear they've sent out a request for bids to develop a 'combat ready' couch for when the ladies get the cramps.

I think you can forget the "Q" in QRF, too, if you really have to be somwhere on time.

34 posted on 01/26/2013 10:18:01 AM PST by tbpiper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Dempsey is a despicable piece of work.


35 posted on 01/26/2013 10:20:30 AM PST by mrsmel (One Who Can See)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

“Many Marines developed dysentery from the complete lack of sanitary conditions.”

* * *

I’d like to read that — what’s it from? Do you have a book/article title, or a link, or both? Thanks!


36 posted on 01/26/2013 10:20:40 AM PST by Hetty_Fauxvert (FUBO, and the useful idiots you rode in on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

They didn’t have a problem in Starship Troopers - everyone took showers together...I’m sure GI Joe would love GI Jane coming in...of course, depends on what Jane looks like...I wonder how the fraternization rule would work at that point?

oh well - everything else is being tossed out the door - I wonder how many females would sign up to combat tours...

Then again, when fighting insurgents - everyone gets combat time out in the red zone - so it’s kinda pointless — conventional wars are a thing of the past...


37 posted on 01/26/2013 10:22:32 AM PST by BCW (http://babylonscovertwar.com/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jsanders2001

They are shaping it into a political arm for the left, to use against the citizens. It will be weakened as a fighting force against foreign enemies, but it will be more effective as a tool of our overlords. Just look at who they’re trying to entice into the military-women, racial minorities, sodomites-the demographics who most support the left, and have been least represented at the sharp end in combat. While at the same time making it an uncomfortable fit for patriotic white males.


38 posted on 01/26/2013 10:25:19 AM PST by mrsmel (One Who Can See)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Flycatcher

I’m against women in combat, but then again, I’m against women voting. I say, since we are going to let them vote, let’s make it contingent on registering for the selective service and being eligible to be drafted into the infantry. Let’s see how many want to take that bargain, and enjoy equal responsibilities of citizenship, along with their equal rights.


39 posted on 01/26/2013 10:26:10 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: River Hawk

Dempsey is bootlicker-in-chief. Wherever there is a despicable action against a military personnel or the military in general, his fingerprint will be there. He’s just perfect for Hussein’s purposes.


40 posted on 01/26/2013 10:27:46 AM PST by mrsmel (One Who Can See)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Progressives. Don’t. Care.

The military is just another government bureaucracy to them, soldiers are just more government jobs, and any problem that comes up will be met with policy changes and more money diverted from warfighting to policy enforcement.

Readiness and capability is a punchline to them. They never intend on getting into another ground war. The future is drones, haven’t you heard?

The idea that the military is anything more than a symbol of outdated conservative thinking is comical to them. The only reason progressives like it at all is because everyone wears a uniform and obeys whatever social experiment thrown at them without a word of complaint.

Don’t tell that that the military is being made into a useless, ROE-and-policy bound Gulliver. They. Don’t. Care. In fact, total victory to them is turning the military into a neutered and inoperable joke.


41 posted on 01/26/2013 10:28:09 AM PST by Steel Wolf ("Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master." - Gaius Sallustius Crispus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Just bring along separate Port-a-Potties. No biggie.


42 posted on 01/26/2013 10:28:09 AM PST by St_Thomas_Aquinas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pepsionice

I agree. What is also infuriating with this whole idea is that women in the military can help (even if they aren’t on the front lines). I am not saying it is equal help. I am saying that you still need doctors, nurses, dentists, and folks to keep all the paperwork. Those jobs DO help.. it may be very different than front lines, but the military (at least how I see it) has many specialities/needs that require people not on the front lines. As a Mom to 2 girls.. I can honestly say that I never had that type of upper body strength nor do all the women I know. Yeah.. are some fit and can run? Sure.. but fighting on the front lines isn’t working out in a gym. This will destroy the military IMHO.


43 posted on 01/26/2013 10:29:03 AM PST by momtothree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: momtothree

I wonder how they plan to get the enemy to cooperate with all their politically correct plans and ideas in combat. Or will they blow all this smoke about women etc in combat, but when it actually comes, the usual will out at the sharp end-white males.


44 posted on 01/26/2013 10:29:58 AM PST by mrsmel (One Who Can See)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: skeeter
“What really drives me nuts is people are going to die because of this stupidity,”

They already have in the military and in civilian applications over the 40 some-odd years that America has been upholding The Big Lie. Whatever comes now is the denouement of America's dishonesty NOT the beginning.

45 posted on 01/26/2013 10:31:47 AM PST by TalBlack (Evil doesn't have a day job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

The Navy method of berthing called ‘Hot Racking’ will take on other meanings.


46 posted on 01/26/2013 10:32:22 AM PST by AU72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: saganite

Dempsey consistently proves with his statements he is unfit for service. He is a slave to his master.


47 posted on 01/26/2013 10:32:51 AM PST by Soul of the South
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
......the U.S. military could figure out ways to preserve the privacy of young ladies serving in frontline combat units.

All you military and ex-military guys out there. How many times were you referred to by officers and NCO'S as "young gentlemen"?

48 posted on 01/26/2013 10:33:34 AM PST by Starstruck (If I were a criminal I would be for gun control.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GreyFriar

This info is a little old, but here’s what I found:

“A 1996 report by Patricia Thomas of the Navy Personnel Research and Development Center in San Diego described the sexual and reproductive patterns of several thousand women aboard fifty naval ships. Their rates of pregnancy were about comparable to those of civilian women of the same age. neither the strict legal barriers nor the relatively draconian conditions of the Navy had apparent impact in inhibiting a general American pattern.

Thomas did not find, as some critics had claimed, that women became pregnant in order to escape duty. Her evidence for this was necessarily indirect—there were similar responses to questions about stress and depression among pregnant and nonpregnant women—but her analysis is more respectful of her informants than one that defines them as malingerers. Perhaps some were. Then why would roughly the same number of Navy women become pregnant as civilian?

She found that 27 percent of pregnancies of women based on ships were planned, whereas nearly half shore-based ones were. More ship women used contraceptives than shore women, though, remarkably, 41 percent used none. One hypothesis offered by naval medical personnel is that the irregular schedules and strenuous work on board ship caused women to forget to take their contraceptive pills.”

http://books.google.com/books?id=XeEUSocx_YoC&pg=PA226&lpg=PA226&dq=%22shipboard+pregnancies%22+us+navy&source=bl&ots=qQn85kdUnX&sig=m1Yn43oImFHzTGzFB5JQkZeRlAs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vB4EUbGfL-TVyAGLqYCgCg&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22shipboard%20pregnancies%22%20us%20navy&f=false


49 posted on 01/26/2013 10:36:07 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Anima Mundi
Maybe the goal is to destroy the protective instinct in the male because if you lose it then you will also have a diminished will to protect in general...as in protect your country, your family, your culture, your values.

Excellent point. (Complete the work that feminism began) It will certainly create havoc and undermine effectiveness if most men's inherent chivalry isn't trained out of them. That might be the point. (Men will have to learn to ignore seeing a fellow "soldier" being gang-raped before being killed, as he's battling the enemy himself) Yet one more way to weaken our military capability, in its primary role as defender of the nation. But it will make an excellent tool of our leftist tyrants.

We must NOT let them disarm us at any price.
50 posted on 01/26/2013 10:36:07 AM PST by mrsmel (One Who Can See)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-140 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson