Posted on 10/24/2016 10:01:10 AM PDT by tekrat
In January 2013, the Department of Defense announced it was removing the combat exclusion ban that kept women out of infantry units and special operations forces like Navy SEALs and Army Green Berets.
Where do we stand nearly four years later?
Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta argued, "If members of our military can meet the qualifications for a job — and let me be clear, we are not reducing qualifications — then they should have the right to serve."
And the day the change in policy was announced, Col. Ellen Haring of the U.S. Army Reserves, who filed a lawsuit challenging the combat exclusion ban, said, "Nobody ever asked for special considerations or reduced standards; just let us compete at the standards as they exist."
(Excerpt) Read more at tampabay.com ...
Their initial argument was they did not want the existing standards lowered.
Now that no woman can still pass the standards, of,course now they question the standards, bitch about the standards, and want the standards lowered.
Who could have forseen this? I see it all the time.
We want equal treatment. When they get equal treatment they do not like equal treatment, and they cry for special treatment. All the benefits and none of the crap. All the rewards and none of the responsibility. Unearned accolades and honors.
A lot of guys cannot either. They didnt have standards lowered because they failed.
If men cant complain and get the standards lowered, whst makes women’s complaints something we must do? What makes their complaints so much more something that must be done, than the many more men who have been rejected?
Because they have breasts and a vagina? I really want to kmow.
On the article site, one woman commented that she didn't understand why being able to do pull ups should be part of the standard. Really? In combat, you may need to be able to climb over a wall, climb into a high window, climb up a rope, etc -- all activities that require a degree of upper body strength which is lacking in most women.
Let me qualify by saying God Bless the brave young women who dedicated themselves to the defense of our country, but now, the truth: Take 100 of your best female soldiers and set them against 20 top male soldiers and I promise you, the men would not suffer a scratch whilst decimating their opponent.
Technically speaking, your statement means that 20 men will only be able to disable/kill 10 women.
Female Olympic teams often train by going against high school boys teams. And often lose. They would not stand a chance against even a moderately-ranked college men's team.
I may be old fashioned when it comes to women, but I refuse to dig her fighting hole when it’s a 110 degrees with 98% out here, ain’t gonna hump her sand bags either!
That is why they are paying for transgender operations, now-—there will be mutilated “women” in combat now and they will be able to qualify.
That is the whole point of this homosexual (Marxist gender “theory”) is to destroy Reason and Logic and our Constitution which is based on Natural Law (Science/Biology) for radical egalitarianism based on Vice. We have a vice system (satanism) even though Montesquieu and Machiavelli stated that Virtue is essential for Freedom, a Republic, and a great military. (Now we promote evil, dysfunctional, mental illness, and it is on purpose, to destroy this country).
They want the homosexual Afghani culture returned (Spartan paganism) where boy harems will be next. It is all for slave cultures of the Spartans—the Man/Boy “love” where Boys are girls and Up is Down and Vice is Virtue and Slavery is Freedom.
The Freemason psychopaths/Hollywood rapers of the Coreys, have been trying to destroy the Christian Worldview in our children since John Dewey—the Communist/Humanist and John Maynard Keynsian economics “master” who destroyed our dollar (Sugar Keyes bragged about all the boys used in his homosexual orgies—in his letters to his homosexual “lovers”.)
These warped, perverted people are beyond EVIL.
Or hump 155 shells by themselves to the breech without dropping it, seat it and go do five more times in a minute.
Or pick up a trail spade with one other troop or spread trails with only three cannoneers per side.
All part of reduced gun crew drills.
Yeah, let them try assaulting uphill with a Pig and 600 rounds of 7.62 x 51.
In the heat, at night.
and men don't?..
..you can't blame them for wanting to get the same advantages as their male counterparts because there is no other avenue to achieve this....the military is indeed a step up in life's prospects..
and you can't say that there aren't a ton of people in the military that are neither good or efficient in their jobs nor particularly loyal....they're in it for the good wages and bennies and the fat pension....why shouldn't women want the same things?
not saying I think women should be in combat, nor do I think standards should be lowered...
but I can understand the advantages and the reasons some women would want to try.
I’m sorry what I meant was they should focus on their current available MOS and not try to qualify women in combat units and meet those standards.
Its enough to be able to defend their position should the need arise.
‘We’re just as good as men,’ Infantrywoman says from back of ambulance
The Soviets used women in combat more than any army during WWII. The Red Army had no problem assigning women to tank crews, artillery crews, as field medics or as snipers. Twenty five percent of Zhukov’s and Konev’s tanks had women crew members when the steam rolled into Berlin. At the height of the war, as the Germans encircled Leningrad, and were within sight of Moscow, the one thing that the Soviets did not do was give a women a PPSH or Moisin Nagant and assign her to an infantry outfit as a rifleman. She could be a medic, a radio operator, or a messenger in an infantry unit, but not as an infantryman. Some women snipers had over 300 kills, but in 1943 th Soviet Army discontinued training women snipers because the women snipers were killed at a much higher rate than the men snipers.
Wouldn’t a woman’s menstrual cycle be a problem in the field?
My father was in the Army Infantry (88th/351st) North
Africa, Italy and Germany during WWII. “WAR IS HELL!”
& “It’s the old man’s WAR; but it’s the young man’s
FIGHT!” to quote him. (He was shell-shocked all to hell.)
His commanding officer was horribly wounded on two
separate occasions. The last time, they DID have to
literally DRAG him out over rough terrain for a long
distance. (He lost a leg in that incident & was finally
sent home.)
Daddy was raised tough as nails in a large family and
they had to hunt to eat; so he was already a crack shot.
He always felt some bit of sympathy for the common
German soldier; but the Nazi officers he absolutely had
no use for them for many reasons.
IF Truman had not had the sense to use the bombs, Daddy
would, as an experienced combat soldier, have had to land
on Japan and keep “charging Hell with a bucket of water”.
It WOULD have been Hell, too.
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.