Posted on 02/11/2016 11:09:14 AM PST by xzins
They were probably only trying to sound "politically correct." But if that was their intention, it also throws in doubt their moral credibility.
Just the opposite, I sick of men defending our country while women tear it down voting for Leftist, that hate Veterans.
Support means nothing in Iraq and Afghanistan as anyone knows full well.
There are no lines. There is no safe space. The attack can come at any location.
Truck drivers are support....and how did that work with those IEDs?
And who REALLY changes those big tires?
And so the nation can die and lose wars because you’re mad at feminists?
Amen, Ohio.
The number of skirt-hiders on here is amazing.
Heck, even our pilots and lawyers get six months of tactical and weapons training post-commissioning at The Basic School before going to flight or JAG school.
But still, there is a difference between being able to fight competently if you must, and being a professional grunt.
Well, at least they would learn a sense of Responsibility to American, instead of doing the hair & Nails and Campaigning for a Socialist.
I swear this guy has Aspergers.
He keeps saying EXACTLY the opposite thing that would help him in the nomination.
Next, he'll call for an overturning of the Second Amendment, and door-to-door searches for guns.
Mark my words. He's that messed-up.
I have five Leftist nieces that Deserve to be drafted, if not into Combat, than into some sort of Service to America.
Honestly, I have never in my life been a single issue voter. But I will not vote for any candidate in the general election who supports letting women in combat units over the objection of a Service Chief. Couldn’t look my active duty grunt nephew in the face if I did.
They are taught so as to be able to defend themselves if attacked. That is SIGNIFICANTLY different than operating as a member of an infantry squad.
It's called the George Costanza political strategy.
Well, you’re going to get a lot of those guys killed by supporting his idiocy. I understand the frustration, but we owe it to the guys still carrying the rifles to fight this battle for them.
Right, but a disparate impact claim can be defeated if there the policy/procedure that causes the disparate impact is demonstrably related to the requirements of the job in question. I think that, if challenged in court, the military would be able to pretty easily show why strict physical requirements (be they height/weight requirements or fitness test requirements) are demonstrably related to the requirements of combat.
You’re right that this whole issue is caused by the “latest affront to proper gender roles” as you so accurately put it; still, I think that if the services wanted to work around the affront, they would be on constitutionally and legally sound footing.
Whether they want to speak out, and be targeted for insult by shrill & neurotic harpies; most girls are quite happy to have men do the fighting and protect the women & children.
Jeb & Rubio have let the PC types condition them into a fantasy. It causes one to seriously question their competence.
They are the replacement of first availability in an emergency. They are part of the rear guard. Their ability to fight is important.
AND, these nuts ALSO want them as part of those fighting units that you mention.
America doesn't understand the military anymore. Custer didn't say, "Cooks and clerks to the rear. You'll be safe there."
Sheesh...
Yes, the Marines train far differently than US Army.
I can tell you having been both an Infantry Sergeant and having worked at a rear echelon US base, the amount of training the non-combat roles receive is AT BEST, a couple of hours of annual training, mostly safety training, and a quick 30 round qualification at paper targets.
I spent 2 years at Ft Leavenworth, Kansas as the range safety officer. I can also tell you that there were several individuals that I knew personally that did NOT do any annual training.
Of course you’re right that men are biologically designed to protect women, the physically weaker sex. What I’m saying is men and women are different—mentally, physically, and emotionally. It’s not simply environment—how we’re raised—that makes us different.
Nevertheless, we live in a fantasy land where people now believe legislation and popular votes can overrule the laws of nature. The only way to point out the insanity of it all is to take the “equality” arguments to their logical conclusion. If men and women are equal, then women don’t get to pick and choose while men are potentially forced to serve in combat.
This is a straight up equal protection argument, and the Supreme Court already held that the military can excluded women from combat units and the draft. What they haven't addressed - though there is a case in the Ninth Circuit right now - is male only registration without a combat exclusion.
I’m opposed to women in combat and the draft, xzins.
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.