Posted on 06/21/2013 1:21:04 PM PDT by Nachum
(CNSNews.com) - Why shouldn't women in the military have the same opportunities as men do? Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel asked on Thursday. It's not a matter of lowering standards, he said.
In remarks at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska, Hagel was asked how he feels about putting females on the front lines of combat -- "based on our social background of men being the protectors of women," as the questioner put it.
Hagel's reponse:
First, I think everyone understands, and this is the right thing, we can't lower standards. We have high standards. We should have high standards. Our country has high standards. Our military has always had higher standards. And we need to keep those standards. And so it's not a matter of lowering standards to assist women to get into combat positions -- women don't want that, you wouldn't want that -- and I think to find the right balance of implementation to allow women to move into these new opportunities and new positions if they want, if they're qualified, if they can do the job.
And why shouldn't they have those opportunities? Why shouldn't they have the same opportunities as men do on these?
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
Yo Chuck old Farts like you that come up with stupid ROE should get the OPPORTUNITY to serve “In the Front Row”
Hell NO ... it ought to be MANDATORY.
What an A$$Hat
TT
As a postscript, at the risk of confusing issues—as with illegal alien amnesty, here again we’re talking about what advances the left’s agenda versus what is good for the country.
Young women shouldn’t have to hump rucks and dodge bullets. There are some old battleaxes, however, who actually tried to join the Marines and have dodged sniper fire. Sign ‘em up!
***** “Who do you want having your back, a 6’ 3” body builder, or a 98 pound mother of three?” ******
More like a 398lb mother of three
TT
Next up: “Why shouldn’t illegals have the same opportunity as real American men?”
Obama, before he leaves our White House, will have the USMC training our enemies to fight - and he’ll be giving them our weapons to do it.
What is wrong with these people? I wish I knew, Bill. I truly do, but I think they’re beyond reason. Do the mentally ill realize they’re ill, or do they think they’re the sane ones?
Hagel, that man is gay!
Women will be allowed to "play" soldier, and get all the tuition assistance and other benefits that are rapidly disappearing if not gone already from much of the private sector.
In the event of a true national emergency, these women will be excused from their obligations and legions of untrained men will be forced to take their place.
I also all over drafting the sons and daughters of Congress members FIRST !
No more deferments cause daddy has money or your in college.
If you are in armed forces currently you already know that minority kids are fighting all of these stupid battles our leaders have gotten us into and then hamstrung with "Rules of Engagement" the last 10 years.
If the service of military women is indistinguishable from me, simply create and field entire units composed of women. Put them head to head against the enemy and see how G.I. Jane does.
Methinks THAT will be a short experiment in social justice!
There are some women who probably could pass the same standards as the men. But, even then, the question is: Where would those few women sleep and shower? And suppose a woman on the front lines becomes pregnant?
And will Americans still want women on the front lines when they start coming home in body bags?
Our civilization needs women to have and care for children not be blown up by a bomb. In WW II, when our military need was greatest, we did not put women in combat. The baby boomers helped create a strong America.
“bet you tried on the cheerleader outfit a time or two...”
No, but I did take off a few.
Just ask Hagel, if you had a choice, as a military infantry division commander, of facing an all female enemy division or an all male enemy division in combat which would you choose and why?
“LOL, chauvinist...”
Probably.
But seriously, you might see a random woman play high school or even college ball. But something like 1/1,000 colleg ball players make the NFL. (I’m making that stat up, but I bet it’s close.) That rare girl who could cut in in college will never make the cut.
The special forces are like the NFL of combat forces.
It’s just not going to happen.
Recruit college aged women who play rugby. Train them and house them together until their monthly cycles synch. Send unit to the 'Stans just before the PMS peak.
Terrorist problem solved.
Put another way, “had the 1st Marine Division at the Chosin Reservoir or the 101st Airborne Division at Bastogne been populated by women troops, would the outcomes have been different”?
The fact that women “warriors” have been in the military for decades, and the DoD has never sought fit to let them stand on their own as a single unit, tells me that even those who are pushing this insanity don't believe their own BS.
Essentially, McNamara was concerned that the mentally inept were being deprived of the opportunity of serving in the military during a time or war. My recollection is that project 100,000 required each branch of the service, not just draftees as many articles state, to meet a quota of recruits from the bottom quintile on intelligence tests. There were some waivers of physical debilities, but that wasn't the thrust.
From memory, the hundred thousanders had a higher washout rate. For the rest, their performance in military service was adequate, the only anomaly a higher casualty rate for those deployed to combat zones. The cost of opportunity, I guess.
One of the underlying ideas was employment opportunity on leaving the service, but I don't think that played out in the statistics, though I don't think they did any worse either.
I've always wondered how they tracked the "candidates", since this wasn't common knowledge at the time.
All about opportunity, that's what government does, provides opportunity. Project 100,000 provided lots of unqualified draftees and recruits the opportunity for foreign travel.
A 50 year old man is typically more physically powerful than the most fit females. Methinks Hagel has watched too many movies. In hand-to-hand combat, a woman wouldn’t stand a chance.
I know for a fact that many (most) women serve honorably, but I also know for a fact that most (nearly all) women don’t serve at the same physical capacity as males. The standards aren’t the same and haven’t been the same for as long as I can remember.
There are some jobs that women can do better than men. Women have more dexterity, and their small stature can be an advantage for some tasks. In other jobs, men rule. That’s just the way life is. You can make up for a woman’s physical disadvantages with equipment, but that’s more expensive logistically and simply not the same as a man who has those abilities intrinsically, i.e. without having to be augmented.
Of course, Hagel could care less about the day-to-day reality of serving in the military. He only cares about the politics of social justice.
Ummm... because one of the reasons men go to war is to protect their women?
Geez. What the hell has happened to this country?
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.