Mommies little sheepdog
Posted on 06/13/2012 3:41:24 PM PDT by kingattax
The United States Army is debating whether to admit women to Ranger School, its elite training program for young combat leaders.
Proponents argue this is to remove a final impediment to the careers of Army women. But the move would erode the unique Ranger ethos and culture—not to mention the program's rigorous physical requirements—harming its core mission of cultivating leaders willing to sacrifice everything for our nation.
The Army's 75th Ranger Regiment traces its roots back to World War II, when it won acclaim for penetrating deep behind Japanese lines. Founded in 1950, Ranger School teaches combat soldiers small-unit tactics and leadership under extreme duress. It pushes men harder than any other program in the Army's curriculum.
Competition to attend the course is fierce, with about 4,000 men eligible to attend each year. Only about half graduate. Of those, only 20% make it through without having to retake various phases.
For decades, completion of Ranger School has been the best indicator for determining which young men can handle the enormous responsibility of combat leadership
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
it's all BULLSH#T about women in combat. I got office hours for showing a "self defense" instructor that she couldn't disarm or subdue me. I'm 5'8" and was a little over 170lbs at that time. I had boxed in the summer growing up, taken judo in high school and generally was an ill tempered young man during my 4 years in a uniform.
All anyone needs to do is look at these jokers PLAYING AROUND-click on this
Look at this video all the way through... they are PLAYING not even angry and you get a feel for the violence and aggressiveness that is needed. They are like wolves playing around and practicing while playing to KILL..... See this and realize that women are USELESS in a front line unit or assault force. USELESS... transport -yeah, medical- yeah, support -yeah.. JAG-whatever. But if I'm breaching a door, manning a FO area or just on a fire team clearing out some buildings... I'd like the women to be in one unit away from me so that at least I'll know where all the incoming fire is going to come from.
I ask, what do you intend to do with this journal?
Just curious, as I am sure you have many posts saved that are quite interesting.
Actually I print them out not re-writing them in case I make some mistake in transferring. My gf’s and I sit around and categorize them into topics. We read them for hours at times and actually discuss them and argue pro and con. Really, no joking, we find these posts quite educational. No sarcasm here or intended. I appreciate all responses and sometimes I provoke to get different responses. No maliciousness is ever intended and have had to apologize in personal emails to those when things seem to be getting out of hand. I’m out here in the outback (bush as we call it) and need some sort of diversion. There’s only one real neat pub and one band on a Saturday night. Hopefully this explains some things. Regards, Janey
ph
Back in the 1980s I was assigned as an NCOIC in charge of a night navigation course when I was a military police platoon sergeant in the Illinois National Guard. It was a relatively simple dead reckoning course consisting of following a series of azimuths for a specified distance, retrieving a specified object at each destination, and returning with them. The battalion commander had ordered every field grade officer to complete the course. One newly commissioned female second LT., a military police platoon leader in our 19-77 TOE military police Company, which amongst other duties was tasked with a light infantry rear area security role refused to take the course. When I asked her why she she did not want to take the course, she told me that she was afraid of the dark. I repeatedly asked her to complete the course and she repeatedly refused to do so. I marked her sheet as a failure to complete the course.
Later the officer in charge of the course called me aside and requested that I give the errant butter bar a passing grade. I refused to do so, citing the fact that this woman was expected to be able to lead her troops into combat, EVEN AT NIGHT. The officer blew his stack and threatened me with disciplinary action for refusing to obey his order. I told him that if he wanted to pass her, that was up to him but I would not do so. He subsequently calmed down and apologized to me explaining that he was under terrific pressure to pass all of the newly acquired women through all the training whether they qualified or not. I sympathized with him because he was actually a pretty good officer, and I was already aware of the background political machinations behind the integration of women into our outfit. I understand that the second lieutenant in question was assigned another administrative position within the battalion
Believe me I understand what you’re talking about.
“The battalion commander had ordered every field grade officer to complete the course.”
Correction. That should read “every company grade officer other than the company commander.
Yeah, my bad. I thought it didn’t post this morning since my post preview was still up on my screen, so I hit “Post”. Oops.
Mommies little sheepdog
You seem to be dragging over a grudge from another thread and making it personal, which is against FR policy.
My post was inspired in part by the excellence of YOUR post. Thank you and for your service as well.
It would seem as though this post modern society would disregard the historical lesson of the superiority of testosterone fueled armies since time immemorial. The victories and battlefield superiority that controlled and disciplined direction of such armies has achieved is supported by thousands of historical examples. All generals attempt to create such fighting machines that epitomize the utmost in controlled aggression and physical fitness.
The virtues of Airborne and Ranger units is not just that they make it thru the training. It is that the posses the aggresive qualities to undertake and modify their mission ON THEIR OWN, after the operational plan has been proven inapplicable or ineffective, as did the misdropped troopers of the 82nd and 101st Airborne, or the Brit 6th Airborne on the D-Day landings. The Rangers on Omaha beach showed similar qualities. These are singularly unique traits of the male charecter and are widespread enough within the general male populace to assure their availability in male combat units (again untill the cultural marxists manage to work their diseugenic black magic on the culture and kill or weaken this valuable trait)
When I went to Ranger School in 1969, the reasoning behind it was so that the Ranger skill and ethos would be as widely spread throughout the Army and the combat arms as possible. The poster that hooked me read “Ranger makes a good saoldier better.” I wanted to be as good as possible and enhance my survival prospects in combat thru hard training. But I realized that this was for the benefit of the Army and not for my personalaspirations, even as the school impressed upon the prestige earned by qualifying to wear the Ranger tab.
My post was inspired in part by the excellence of YOUR post. Thank you and for your service as well.
It would seem as though this post modern society would disregard the historical lesson of the superiority of testosterone fueled armies since time immemorial. The victories and battlefield superiority that controlled and disciplined direction of such armies has achieved is supported by thousands of historical examples. All generals attempt to create such fighting machines that epitomize the utmost in controlled aggression and physical fitness.
The virtues of Airborne and Ranger units is not just that they make it thru the training. It is that the posses the aggresive qualities to undertake and modify their mission ON THEIR OWN, after the operational plan has been proven inapplicable or ineffective, as did the misdropped troopers of the 82nd and 101st Airborne, or the Brit 6th Airborne on the D-Day landings. The Rangers on Omaha beach showed similar qualities. These are singularly unique traits of the male charecter and are widespread enough within the general male populace to assure their availability in male combat units (again untill the cultural marxists manage to work their diseugenic black magic on the culture and kill or weaken this valuable trait)
When I went to Ranger School in 1969, the reasoning behind it was so that the Ranger skill and ethos would be as widely spread throughout the Army and the combat arms as possible. The poster that hooked me read “Ranger makes a good saoldier better.” I wanted to be as good as possible and enhance my survival prospects in combat thru hard training. But I realized that this was for the benefit of the Army and not for my personalaspirations, even as the school impressed upon the prestige earned by qualifying to wear the Ranger tab.
The thing that armchair warriors such as yourself do not seem to understand is that behind every man in the field there are a whole team of support staff. This started even before the revolutionary war when armies were followed into conflicts by “camp followers” many of whom were women. The services they provided were considered essential enough that the British actually sent many of them to America to assist their troops.
During WWII General Douglas MacArthur said of the “WACs were my best soldiers”. He said that “they worked harder, complained less, and were better disciplined than men.” Eisenhower said of the WACs, “”their contributions in efficiency, skill, spirit, and determination are immeasurable”.
You are not the only one in this thread that posted negative stories and claims about women in uniform, but as usual you were one of the more vicious and presented your typical exaggerated claims, “170 lb packs”. Right!
I seriously doubt whether there are more than a handful of women in the entire country who would even be interested in going to Ranger School. The thing that I object to here is mischaracterizing the women who have served and are currently serving our country right now. I have a big problem with that... I recently finished a slideshow that was used at the funeral of a friend of ours who was the first Marine Officer woman sent to Vietnam. I couldn't care less about your foolish comments in the other thread. They stand by themselves... you've been debating the origins and fine points of the term baby boomer for years! That gave me a good laugh; thank you! I almost posted back that I'd give you a big kiss if you were standing next to me. So there is no grudge there.
You really ought to take a critical look at what you have been writing however. there is really no need to be a bully on this forum. We can disagree and teach each other without being nasty. Your accusation is pretty funny considering the vitriol that you routinely spread. I guess that you have had the rules explained to you a few different times.
Like I said, you are stalking and carrying grudges.
Almost three hundred posts on this mostly dead thread and you jump on solely to attack me personally, dragging in references and baggage from some other thread.
Or at least, they did. The problem here is that we are a technologically driven military, and for that I am glad. I WANT the fight to be as absolutely unfair as possible (a concept liberals have a tough time with...there is something offensive to them about an unfair fight)
The fact that our military is physically fit, well trained and well equipped with some of the best technology is lulling us into a very dangerous mindset. We take it for granted. And I think our military does too. The leadership definitely does, or they would not push for women in combat roles.
But because there are deadly aspects of warfare carried out by 98 lb. women in clean clothes in air conditioned rooms, we are all forgetting that if our GPS goes away, our satellites go away, our precision munitions go away, our stealth airplanes and helicopter gunships go away, warfare will suddenly become very primitive. It may end up looking like Omaha Beach, Peleliu or Chosin.
And at that point, the composition of the units in the fight is going to be very important, and it will be too late to do anything about it.
But I am preaching to the choir here.
Read this page - Behind the Wall
Scroll down a bit more than half-way, to the writeup on John R. Jones and Ranger school.
Tell me how many women you know who can survive in that environment.
“they are PLAYING not even angry and you get a feel for the violence and aggressiveness that is needed.”
Not just needed: WANTED. These guys LIKE this activity. They CRAVE violence. They’ll play, they’ll refrain from it outside dire need, and they’ll seek opportunities justifying it.
The guy in the center of the photo below is a Marine, (not even "Force Recon" to the best of my knowledge) Sgt. Bradley Kasal.
If you're not familiar with him, you should be.
At the time the photo was taken, what he had "in him" was 50 bullets and shrapnel fragments.
What he didn't have "in him" was over half his blood and four inches of leg bone, which is why he had to be assisted out of the building.
Note he's not leaving on a stretcher, but rather still partially moving under his own power, holding his pistol, still ready to defend himself and his fellow Marines.
Now, tell us again what part of him you're going to spray-paint.
On May 1, 2006, in a ceremony at Camp Pendleton, Kasal was awarded the Navy Cross, followed by his promotion to Sergeant Major and reenlistment in the Marine Corps.
Actions in Iraq
In a fire fight in a house in Fallujah, although wounded by seven 7.62x39mm AK-47 rounds and hit by more than 43 pieces of hot fragmentation from a grenade while using his body to shield an injured fellow Marine, Kasal refused to quit fighting and is credited with saving the lives of several Marines during the U.S. assault on insurgent strongholds in Fallujah in November 2004.
By the time he was carried out of the house by LCpl Chris Marquez and LCpl Dane Shaffer, Kasal had lost approximately 60 percent of his blood.[1] The photograph of Kasal, taken by photographer Lucian Read — blood-soaked and still holding his M9 pistol and KA-Bar fighting knife — being helped from the building by fellow Marines, has become one of the iconic pictures of the war.[2]
Recovery
Due to the injuries, Kasal lost four inches of bone in his right leg. Kasal has undergone 21 surgeries to date in order to repair his injuries and save his leg.[3] Kasal continues his recovery from his wounds and still walks with a limp.
But I wonder if he could sneak up on a peacetime barracks to snap pictures of the opposite sex?
Talk to the parents of some of the Marine women killed in Iraq. Secondly, nice movie still. Gun in his hand hanging around the neck another guy holding him up?? Shiny at that???I’ve had enjoyable convo’s with several guys here. It’s been informative. The thread is ended as far as I’m concerned. Chat amongst yourselves. Thanks again for your picture and all. Regards, Janey
“I was flying a twin and ran into a thunderstorm”
Only an idiot would say such a thing. A REAL pilot would have turned away from it and left because any pilot knows the winds of a thunderstorm tear apart little airplanes. Airlines are not allowed by corporate regulation to get near them and private pilots know to skirt them. So, I call bullsh*t on your little story of heroics.
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.