Posted on 01/25/2013 7:53:36 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
There is always a hidden objective behind liberal proposals. This has little to do with letting women carry 60 lbs. of combat gear and share foxholes ...bank on it!
People just don't know anything about the military.
The Gods of the Copybook Headings will come around and correct things after a bit.
Water is wet, fire burns, and the fool's finger goes wabbling back to the fire.
/johnny
Girl power!!! >>> <<< KABLAM!
Having been Active Duty Army I can say that I really don’t have a problem with the concept. Problem is when you have different standards for folks in the same job. If we are going to have a Unisex military we should have a Unisex PT standard FOR THE JOB! I have seen women that are perfect for combat and I have seen men that were there only because of their sex. I’m talking about uniform standards by MOS. In fact the U.S. Air Force did a study and the female body can withstand more G-Forces than a man but I seriously doubt that most women can stand the rigors of a full rucksack humping over a mountain while sporting an M60 and attacking an objective like I have seen in Ranger School. There are women who can do this and they should be allowed this option. As far as how they are treated after capture I’ll refrain from any comment.
This must mean showing up to pull the lanyard.
That is how they see everything, it is all simply pulling a trigger, pulling a lanyard, sitting in the seat and steering a tank.
Anyone ever see the report of pregnancy rates on naval ships in combat zones?
First you turn the Joint Chiefs into a pack of liberal political a-holes then you tell them what they think.
If there are they represent a minute fraction of a percentage and there is no logical reason to introduce huge complications simply to accommodate the desires of the few. The mission of the military isn't simply to offer "career opportunities" to females and there is no "right" to serve.
Frankly, the GOP should be pushing legislation to have women register for selective service ASAP. I think that reality would put the situation into sharp focus for those who think this just boils down to more options for women.
Why should the military waste time and money looking for and trying to train exceptional women who can do the job a man can do?
We know what will happen, they will fudge the training.
Perhaps if more of his congregation had voted, we wouldn’t be talking about this.
I’ll say it’s tragic. This is authority vested solely in Congress by Article 1 Section 8 of The Constitution. How can they let Panetta get away with this?
barry must have something on all of them.
I know that most everyone in my Conservative Bible believing Church voted, and they voted for Romney. They understood the evil that Obama is and voted for Romney though he is Mormon. I am not sure that many Churches didn't do the same thing. You can't believe the media's narration of the voting turnout. It was likely a huge scam and Obama was voted out by a good margin, but the cheating took precedence. Obama knew the fix was in and therefore hardly ran a campaign, except as a smoke screen. This was pretty obvious.
I am involved with those who are said to have been part of the block that solidly voted Obama back in, and it is they that are often the ones that say that they didn't vote for him this time, though they did last time. Not because they are against him necessarily, but because they just weren't as motivated this time around and didn't make it down to vote.
The rule of our times is don't believe anything that the media puts forth as facts, as they are sold out liars.
Since the Southern Baptists are the most republican voting group in America, and while voting 80% McCain in 2008 which exceeded the overall Evangelical vote, and in 2012, the Evangelicals voted 79% republican, the Southern Baptist vote for the GOP probably exceeded 80%.
Your statement is pretty stupid since there is NO group, none, for instance the Catholic denomination has voted FOR Obama both times, not even Mormons voting for their Bishop Romney who voted more against Obama than Land's denomination.
By the way, Romney has been trying to homosexualize the military for 20 years, so he was not exactly opposed to things like this.
See post 16, there is zero question of how Land’s denomination voted, they were the most anti-Obama voters in America.
F-in Democrats are scum...F em all....
I know of no woman who could carry a fully combat loaded Ranger ruck for many miles UP hill (mostly) and still fight onto and through an objective, pick up and move several more miles carring the same ruck (up to 120+ lbs) and be able to fight again.
Unless they really lower the standards for a regular infantry unit, they will even not be able to meet those standards.
A Mountain Large ruck can hold a lot of stuff. The new gear can hold even more, and a woman could not pack her fair share.
Lots of men are going to die protecting them and a lot of units moral is going to hit the dumper along with pregnancy rates making units combat ineffective and the sexual harasment/rape accusations climbing through the roof.
NOT A GOOD IDEA.
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.