Point 3: Even the smallest hit on logistics or accommodations should be reason enough. That difference can be the deciding one in a critical situation. for the want of a nail...
Posted on 08/21/2015 8:26:48 PM PDT by T-Bird45
It is sad though that one of our young leaders is bereft of intellectual rigor that he stoops to using that nonsensical term “haters”.
Nuance is lost on politically correct brow beaten mush brains
But thanks for making the effort
Yes, and rain will still be wet, and the wind will still blow.
That may be close to a "rule" in the Infantry Branch but not so much otherwise. Just my observation from my Army time, others may have observed differently. I cannot recall any Ranger-tabbed officers in my artillery battalion. I personally knew two that went when we were ROTC cadets so neither of them had a branch when they went. One eventually became Infantry, the other Armor.
Ex army here. I know women are capable physically... Rhonda Rousey could arm bar and take punches from any man. I just don’t know about sticking women into a ranger batt. I have always seen women warriors are protectors, not aggressors. For myself, I am the protector, it is natural. These girls made it... I respect that. I know I prob wouldn’t have.
I did enjoy the comment about getting smoked...
You go girls!
Would I want them raising my grandchildren.... I don’t know.
I ask in a spirit of genuine curiosity what possible roles Rangers can expect to play?
Is it simply battlefield combat as infantry or do they also have an undercover role as special forces like say the role played by Britain’s SAS?
If it is the latter then there surely is a role for women in urban environments where big hulking six-footers with shaven heads would stand out?
I know that women were frequently used by the British Army in ambushes on terrorist suspects in Northern Ireland in urban settings.
The definition of “hater” is someone who disagrees with a liberal.
If the writer felt differently, would he have been allowed to write that, without repercussions to his future?
That’s great but if she can’t carry me out if I’m wounded then she doesn’t deserve the honor of fighting next to me. Simple as that.
it isnt about whether they can
it is about whether they should
> Yeah, and would you have the guts to tell him that to his face? I think not. Easy to spew crap from behind a keyboard, isn’t it.
This is PC crap and you know it. This is a forum to vent and discuss things. Get over it.
At first glance, this looks like someone REALLY REALLY wants to convince skeptics.....and shut down any policy discussions therewith.
When your military is dumbed down to accommodate PC, as it has become; it’s scary. - Even as distant a time as 20 years ago; an ex-military officer stated that was the case at that time. He said that “bugging out” had become a joke; that the women didn’t have the upper body strength to even load the heavy equipment for a bugout. - So, they were never able to complete a bugout. - The idea the little girls should get to do ANYTHING THEY WANT just because they WANT it is stupid.
actually, they are USMA graduates and officers that will benefit from the training and those benefits will be felt in their commands
The sub tender your talking about wouldn’t be the USS CapeCod would it?
When I was in the ship was known as the love boat. The sailors on that
ship had some crazy stories of love triangles and jealous fights over
women. Not to mention the pregnancies. What a mess that ship
was.
Didn’t our administration announce a short time ago that our military would no longer be a war fighting force?
I am not saying the guy is Massengale, I don't know hime, but that was the image that appeared to me. It looked to me like he stuck his finger in the air and saw which way the wind was blowing.
Woe to the officer or man who does not roll with the tide on this, because the battle is lost.
And in the next 5-10 years, you will see pieces in the media talking about how wrong the naysayers were (as footage of women humping gear and walking through tall grass with ready weapons is shown in the background) and that the force being shown is so much the better for having added women.
And you won't hear otherwise, except the ripping sound of purging taking place for the people who didn't stick their fingers in the air, and didn't go with the flow.
And when we meet an enemy in battle who isn't as foolish as we are, the people who advocated for this "improvement" will be either long gone (as politicians usually are when things go bad) or they will be squealing the loudest, looking for scapegoats and wondering as liberals often do, why nobody had seen problems (and the problem SURELY will NOT be mixed gender combat units).
But that battle is over. The advancement path will be open because the combat "experience" is available, and nobody will be able to say "They are an equal opportunity pick for advancement".
This has already been going on for a while in the US Navy and Air Force.
Army is next.
Marines will be the last.
But they will all be degraded by this approach. Just my opinion.
I will also clarify my stance on this: It is not that I think that individual women cannot pass the physical test. matching the physical ability curves of men and women, there are ALWAYS going to be some women at the high end of the curve (assuming the same standards are used to create the curve) whose section will overlap the lower end of the curve on the men’s side. And this has nothing to do with the mental acumen of females. I have no problem following the commands of a capable woman. I respect a capable woman as much as any capable man. But that is not the issue. I am against mixed gender combat units.
Point 1: The men’s physical strength side of the curve will ALWAYS be higher. Always. This is NOT disputable, no matter how hard someone wants to disagree, it is indisputable. And this is what we should draw on for combat troops.
Point 2: I disagree vehemently with the concept of mixing young men and women together. This is not an office, regardless of what the people pushing to transform our military want us all to have it as. This is a battlefield, where an enemy with a small advantage can win. To sacrifice any capability (even that much) on the altar of liberalism and feminism is criminal. These people are going to be far from home, in dangerous situations, and you take groups of 18-30 year old men and women and mix them in together, what on earth is going to happen? WE will never hear about it, because all the judicial actions and punishments will be carried out in private, including the ones where officers will be canned for sleeping with their troops, because even with those, only people who read a small blurb will find out about it.
Point 3: Even the smallest hit on logistics or accommodations should be reason enough. That difference can be the deciding one in a critical situation.
But, as I said, this battle is over.
I assuming if we ever had to go to war and draft implemented these women would be relegated to support roles. right now we are not in a hot war so politicians ie civilians and military feel they can attempt social experiementation.
Point 3: Even the smallest hit on logistics or accommodations should be reason enough. That difference can be the deciding one in a critical situation. for the want of a nail...
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.