thanks. i think i'll go puke up my dinner now .....
Posted on 10/07/2015 3:38:27 PM PDT by fwdude
Oh boy...
Some 2nd info:
Not only did the ladies not have to carry the 240B at anytime...
The only latrine at the Benning phase was cut in half.
200 dudes now use 1/2 of what they used to have. 19 ladies had the other half. Latrine time is precious. Plus the men have to shave.
The cathole in the ORP now had a f*cken curtain around it. Very tactical.
Firemen carries - only ladies carrying ladies. Luckily a wounded 230 lb male will never need to be carried out of combat.
Obama’s agenda corrupting everything and everyone it touches.
I applaud the efforts of Congressman Steve Russell (no relation to me) to get to the bottom of the allegations. I find this article to be a mix of the details of the inquiry by Rep Russell and a rehash of a lot of rumors on the various forums.
For a clearer understanding of the back ground issues on the integration of women in the Army and the Ranger Program, you can read Female Rangers – How General Odierno Saved the Ranger Program and Army’s Warrior Culture, which was published here on Free Republic and my website www.williamrussell.net.
The Army Chief of Staff, General Odierno took a lot of heat inside the Army and Ranger communities. Many argued that he should have resigned in protest to instead of allowing the experiment to take place. Sure, Gen Odierno could have resigned rather than control the experiment. If he had, it would have made a point which would have lasted about 3 seconds in the national press and he would have handed full control of the Ranger Program to politicians whose only goals are political points, and destroying military’s warrior culture.
But for argument’s sake, let’s assume the rumors about MG Miller are true for just a moment. (I’ll just re-use what I posted on the LinkedIn Ranger Forum) It only proves that women could not pass the course without massive special assistance and that they are wholly unqualified. However, if 100% failed, no matter how much the Army bent over backwards to try to assure their success, it would have only proved [to the lib politicians] that the Army is sexist and that politicians must adjust and oversee the Ranger standards to allow a certain quota of women to pass the course and enter the Ranger Regiment.
The Army leadership can now claim that women can make the standard and the standards do not need to be lowered or quotas introduced. This is one of the very few examples in life where I fathom that breaking the standard actually served to preserve the standard.
I believe we will not see a whole lot of women signing up for Ranger training. Finding women who can hang with the training is like finding women who could play in the NBA. The Army could only fill 100 of the 160 slots they set aside to start the pre-Ranger program. The first time pass rate for men starting Ranger School is @ 20% (I believe closer to 40% for those who attend pre-Ranger which includes almost all enlisted men and cadets who want to attend). The first time pass rate for the women in the program was 0%. The pass rate for men jumps to 40% when recycles are thrown in (the vast majority of these are one-time recycles). The pass rate for the women was 0%. I don’t know the numbers on guys who have taken more than one recycle (my hat is off to anyone who recycles to complete the course). The women’s stats made it up to 6% after two recycles of those who started the Ranger course and remained at 2% for those who qualified for pre-Ranger.
While I congratulate the women for sticking it out, I think they are as unusual in this world as Britney Granier is in the WNBA..... While there was much speculation about her trying out for the Dallas Mavericks, there is a reason why that speculation quietly faded away and Britney Granier is not playing the NBA. As the premier player of the WNBA, she is an exceptionally gifted athlete. She could possibly make the roster of an NBA team, but in the real world of professional sports and big-money championships, she would at best be an average to below average player in the NBA.
The profession of arms, especially the combat arms specialties, are every bit as physically demanding as any professional sport. It’s just that the stakes are so much higher.
thanks. i think i'll go puke up my dinner now .....
Many of the men I served with have forwarded the truth on this. Let’s just say it is very rare that the CG of Fort Benning ends up at Dahlonega GA in the mountain ranger camp as your lane grader unless he was told Obama will be at the women’s graduation.
Miller was the enabler.
I remember seeing the news clips at the time, these women were having a tough time climbing over obstacles let alone other feats, funny
You points are very well taken, especially given that despite the name, Ranger School is a leadership course for individuals so called at a time when the Army had disbanded Rangers and the school was an attempt to infuse the spirit and skills of Rangers throughout the Army through the junior officers. It served its purpose well. It also came to be a surrogate for junior officers who had no infantry combat experience and therefore had no Combat Infantryman’s Badge. The Ranger Tab gave credibility to Lieutenants while the Army worked on them to make seasoned leaders.
From this perspective, what Odierno did was a good move, as the experiment was only about an individual course and not combat organizations. As for females graduating, a 2% graduation rate is certain a reasonable result given known physical and other differences. Bully for them, and they will not be the first Ranger graduates who got a wink and a not from some Ranger Lane Grader. The problem is that this is a tactical victory. The political agenda is women in all combat arms organizations including Special Forces and the Ranger Regiment and the feminists will win this fight followed by reductions of standards across the board for all qualification courses, in unit training, and in selection of leaders across the ground gaining combat arms. The Russians are making a mockery of our military today in Syria because of a weak President and a failed foreign strategy. Wait until they take on our new metrosexual combat units.
I don't doubt that someone tell you this, but I don't believe it. The scenario that you describe only fits the Battle of the Bulge and the Chinese Intervention in the Korean War. The only units that contained female were hospital units and the only females were officer nurses. Loading up the hospital was not their job, although they could certainly have helped and no doubt did so. I don't think this happened.
I don't remember if any nurses were captured in the Korean War, but if they were it was only a few. Nurses were captured in the Philippines in WWII, but so was every American unit in the Philippines. Some medical units were overrun in the Ardennes and nurses became POWs. The Germans didn't really what to do with them and they were put into civilian internment camps.
The point is that our gender integrated military has never had to fight in circumstances where large losses including women KIA's and POW's would occur. When that happens, you can be sure that rapes, beheadings, and sex slave auctions will be on You Tube for everyone to enjoy.
Well stated, Centurion316. The degradation in standards you point to is a long term fight. The advantage to the way Gen Odierno played it is that it gives a strong point of defense against establishing quotas an lowering the standards. One of the big issues is the shortage of women qualified, able, and willing to take on the challenge....The Army cast a wide net over the course of a year and could only come up with 100 women to attempt the course. There will be just enough women to qualify for the course and pass in future years to justify keeping the current standards without creating quotas for it.
I think the guy was being straight with me. His was a medical unit and he had no reason to lie to me. The
equipment was heavy medical equipment and personnel was what it was.
Thanks very much, but I don’t think that the facts square with his report. The implication is that because female soldiers failed to perform, a unit required to “bug out” could not and was either destroyed or was captured occurred because of failure by women soldier.
No such event has ever occurred in our military history. 67 women are recognized as POWs of the Japanese in WWII. Most were in the Philippines, but a few were captured in Guam. No other medical units in the Pacific were overrun, surrendered, or lost female soldiers due to enemy action. Remember, Army and Navy nurses were commissioned officers and had no responsibility to manhandle heavy medical equipment.
Only a single female soldier was captured in the European Theater in World War II and she was a flight nurse whose C-47 aircraft was shot down. The German allowed her to provide nursing care to her fellow POW’s, but after notifying the International Red Cross, she was repatriated after four months of captivity. No other nurses or female soldiers were captured by the enemy and only a handful of female soldiers were killed in action, mostly nurses in the Anzio beachhead.
Women in World War II were not combatives and were generally so treated by all belligerents.
No female soldier were captured during the Korean War and no medical unit was overrun by either the North Koreans or by the Chinese Communists. For an alternative narrative, tuni into MASH rerun TV shows. But, these are not fact.
The story is bogus.
Loser dies, eventually.
First, they get raped a lot.
Well. Think what you like. Opinions are like belly-buttons;
everybody has one. Obviously, NO ONE is gonna tell YOU
nothing. I, frankly, don’t wish to try. There are many agendas on FR.
The outfit I was told about was NOT in combat at the time. It was a DRILL. A peacetime DRILL.
A drill, peacetime. A tiny little important fact that you didn’t bother to mention. It didn’t help advance the story that you were trying to foist on the audience.
There all sorts on Free Republic and sometimes they show what they really are. Good luck to you.
Just what IS Twinkie really, centurion316?
Twinkies everywhere want to know!
Here’s your complete post on this thread:
“Women don’t have the upper body strength to cut it in combat. A retired Army officer told me 20 yrs. ago that
there were lots of women in his outfit. When they got the
“bugout” order; they simply could not bug out because the
women couldn’t lift the many heavy items on to the trucks
in order to bug out. So - they didn’t bug out. Period.”
I post it because I doubt that you accurately recall what you said. Note your first sentence and the key word: “combat”. Having said that, you provided a anecdote that had nothing to do with combat, but with training and you failed to note that fact. But, I do understand. In addition to your problem with English, you don’t grasp why the difference between combat and training is so important.
Twinkie = some moron on Free Repbulic. Ignorance can be cured, but I’m not sure that is your problem. Enjoy.
Most men can’t get through Ranger School.
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.