I, uh, what was the question again?
Posted on 01/04/2014 7:31:55 AM PST by NKP_Vet
There are three different types of ideas: good ideas, bad ideas, and ideas so horrifically stupid that they will be mocked and scorned by our descendants for centuries to come.
Modern left-wingers typically trade in the second sort of idea, while occasionally conjuring up something that unquestionably falls into the third category.
Speaking of which, there’s this.
After discovering that half of the female Marines can’t meet the minimum physical fitness requirements, usually failing to do three pull-ups, the Corps has decided to delay the standards. This is all part of the process of “equalizing” physical requirements so as to integrate women into combat roles.
Here we have a horrible idea, stacked on top of a bewilderingly idiotic idea, poured over a collection of reckless, ideologically-fueled, irrational, liberal feminist ideas. Basically, an insane idea had sexual relations with a moronic idea and the two gave birth to this idea.
In other words, I disagree.
(Excerpt) Read more at themattwalshblog.com ...
There was a time when fighting wars was for men, and there were certain combat specialties that the vast majority of men couldn’t do. And guess what nothing has changed in these elite combat fields except political correctness run amok. Men die in war, and now more men will die.
“These are men, America’s best
One hundred men we’ll test today
But only three win the Green Beret”
~ SSgt Barry Sadler, 1965
So women are the same?
I am a woman. I have a lot of skills that aren’t typical ‘woman’ skills .... for example, I’m excellent at building rock cribbing. Although my arms are fairly strong (lifting rocks, hauling hay bales, tamping fence posts), I do not have overall upper body strength ... I just don’t, even though I’ve tried to improve it. There is NO WAY I would endanger another soldier ... man or woman, by trying to attain combat status when I could not pass minimum standards set up for men. This is not a game .... not a PC exercise ... it’s about LIVES that could be lost due to my inability to perform. I like the traditional roles ... men as the fighters and defenders, women stay “home” and take care of what needs taking care of there. If there is mutual respect, then there should be no diminishing of either sex or the roles to which they are most suited. Are there exceptions? Sure ... but the military should not allow itself to be run by the ‘exceptions’ to the rules.
They may not die. They may be captured, raped, and tortured.
Send an all female platoon in first.
When they don’t have men to carry the load that will quickly put an end to this nonsense.
Ever see photos of women that fly A-10’s and other killer machines?.
“haha, no, nobody is saying women lack courage, I’ve seen some ladies with far too much of it in my opinion”
Yes I personally have no problem dealing with some wannabe gangsta trying to come through the back door of the house. Thats a problem I and my “little friend” are happy to handle but facing down 100 screaming Muslim nutjobs with AK47’s and bad breath is another matter entirely. :-)
Open up the NFL to women and see how many make the cut.
The physical fitness requirements for any Special Operations combat arms, whether it be Navy Seal, Army Rangers, Delta Force, Air Force Combat Controller, or Marine Force Recon, is tougher than the physical requirements in the National Football League. How many women are screaming to get in the NFL, NHL, or NBA. How many women are on mens college football teams. NONE in the professional “mens” sports and NONE on college football teams. There’s a reason, but try telling that to Obama and his team of leftwing quacks that are trying everything in their power to destroy the US military.
At the rate the metrosexuals are taking over our military is doomed anyway.
I, uh, what was the question again?
That's a different world than fighting it out down in the dirt with rifle butts and K-Bars and having to carry your wounded out of danger. .
Link to the full-text Free Republic thread.
Israel tried it and it was a miserable failure. When was the last time the socialist countries you mentioned actually fought a war?
With that blond hair showing, what is the purpose of the camo? A snipers bulls-eye?
Don’t just open the NFL up for female tryouts. To reach this level of insanity, the NFL would have to change the rules to force each team to have 2 or 3 ladies on the field at all time, working up to a goal of 4 over a declared time table.
Picture one team of utopian NFLers with two ladies in the defensive secondary, vs an NFL offense made up of its current 11 men. I want to see that lady safety down in an endzone scuffle with a 6’4” and 230# tight end who can also outrun her at any distance.
The results would be predictable.
That is the U.S. military vs China, if it comes to that.
Our feminized and homosexualized military will be routed. “Task Force Smith” in Korea came close to being shattered and routed worse than the Italians in North Africa. And they were all very tough post-WW2 men, not metrosexuals softened by a life of climate control and computer games.
This isn't a stupid idea. Its a well thought out and deliberate plan to destroy the US military as an effective fighting force and to undermine American culture and Western civilization. This is social engineering at its finest.
Young women are a countrie’s most important resource because they can replace the population. Having them shot off on the front lines is idiocy. But perhaps those in power recognize this and are more than willing to weaken the US
I’m not sure what you mean by “jello” - undependable? That’s how I view the problem.
If “our” unit is strung thin in defense and I’m in love with the woman at the left flank, I’m not dependable: my unit’s in danger from a circumstance my commander doesn’t know about. There’s a very real chance of me abandoning my position and going to her aid if it gets heavy over there. Likewise, if she’s killed I’m going to be worse than worthless, I’ll be emotionally explosive and a “revenge at any cost” danger to my unit.
I don’t see how this policy could end up with anything other than needless deaths. It’s truly “murder by misrule.”
Actually, it should be:
"Let us burden our sons with girls in battle so that we lose the next fighting war, for the sake of gender neutrality!"
In a physical conflict, at sea or on land, an all-male unit is going to kick the ass of a co-ed unit.
The only place where women offer material fighting advantage in combat is aviation, because their bodies can withstand higher g forces. In figher jets, they can fling themselves around in the sky better than their male counterparts. That is according to MALE fighter pilot friends.
This is actually about deliberate sabotage of our military so it will LOSE the next armed conflict to an army that won't play by the stupid "gender neutrality" rules.
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.