Posted on 11/18/2013 10:48:36 AM PST by QT3.14
The Marine Corps may have to change its physical standards in order to put females in positions to one day lead infantry platoons in combat.
Both the Marine Corps and the Army continue to wrestle with the mandate that former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta issued in January, directing the U.S. military to open hundreds of combat-arms jobs that have been closed to female servicemembers.
So far, the Marines have been out ahead.
(Excerpt) Read more at military.com ...
<< My female handgun students take to guns like the proverbial duck to water >>
That’s my experience also. My fellow males, however, treat the trigger like a hand exercise device and blame the gun for all their mistakes.
Then place them in positions as E-3 female sharpshooters who can’t hump their ammo.
So the Soviets had superior surgeons to America because females make better surgeons than men?
That’s why Obama and his fellow travelers are doing it. Destroy it from within.
Yeah, yeah - still: avoiding service is still unpatriotic cowardice, isn't it?
Big difference between shooting well at a range and aiming at a living person and killing him. We have always had a lot of trouble getting young men to aim their weapons effectively in combat. It will be much worse with young women. Mixing men and women in combat units will reduce our already precarious effectiveness.
Well, we’re a country of 300 million people, so no, I can’t really agree with that sentiment. We don’t need a standing army of millions of people drawing government paychecks in peacetime just to prove how patriotic they are.
Of the 300 million, half are male. Of those, about 2/3rds are underage or overage for military service - so that makes 50 million or so eligible for the uniform and the necessary training and skills to defend the rest.
What was your excuse?
Maybe he was making the money to pay for your paycheck? How much profit did you create as a soldier? Someone needs to fund the military, yes? Or were you a "true" volunteer, serving your country without asking for any pay?
Wait, you mean you accepted MONEY for your service? What are you, some kind of mercenary scum?!?! A TRUE patriot would have refused his paycheck as being unworthy of him. He would have served just for his duty to God and country!!!
Thanks for proving the general adage that those most ready to engage in a d*ck-waving contest are usually those with the smallest "investments." Military service doesn't mean you aren't still an a**hole (see John McCain)...
You’re the worst kind of rationalizer: while you and those like you were finding excuses for avoiding military service, people like me were facing fire. I got hit like many others and I spent a year in the hospital. Do you really think the “ paycheck” was worth that?
As far as the homosexual references go, I’ll leave that kind of thing to you.
“so that makes 50 million or so eligible for the uniform and the necessary training and skills to defend the rest.”
Yes, exactly. Of course, they needn’t all serve at the same time, but say 10% of them at any given time, and it would take a 5 million man standing army. Just to satisfy your demand that people prove their patriotism.
I don’t know about you, but I am against expanding government needlessly. You might want to pay more taxes for that kind of waste, but I will pass.
Sure. You avoiding risking your skin just to keep government small. I’m sure the risk of death or injury had nothing to with it. Luckily, we had better folks available.
I am heartily sick of the excuses I hear while a shrinking pool of “other people’s children” have to bear the burdens to keep this country safe.
You can keep trying to turn this into a personal flame war against me, or we can have a discussion about the issue at hand. Both of them are not going to happen.
I don’t think further discussion is useful. I have the utmost respect for those few who are serving or have served their country in the armed forces.
Little or no interest in those who were capable yet let someone else take their place.
That i wouldn’t know about. I imagine some won’t shoot to kill until they really really have to.
I haven't seen such a disgusting post in years, it was also as childish as they come, especially the part about GIs having the least invested in serving in the military.
If you had a point or an insult to make to that poster, you proved grossly incompetent at it.
Read his original post that I responded to, pal. First of all, he’s making a lot of assumptions about the folks posting here (as to who has or has not served). Second of all, if you needed a sarcasm tag, I’m sorry I didn’t post one, but I thought it would be obvious.
We could all narrowly define what we thought was and was not “patriotic” based on our own personal choices (if you haven’t run for political office you’re not a “true” patriot, etc.), but to do so is hypocritical. Moreover, actually read the thread. A poster asked what PT stood for (joking about the acronym usage) and got a nice demeaning reply (followed by attacks on other posters based on their lack of military service). If that’s the hill you want to die on...
> Big difference between shooting well at a range and aiming at a living person and killing him. We have always had a lot of trouble getting young men to aim their weapons effectively in combat. It will be much worse with young women. Mixing men and women in combat units will reduce our already precarious effectiveness.
I agree. I think they will be a distraction and a liability on the battlefield in general. Of course this is the plan.
My own experience has been that the very best young men - and now women - still understand that their duty is to spend at least some small part of their time learning the skills of war and maybe losing everything for everyone's freedoms/the survival of our country. For those who have served in combat, their lives are changed. For those who have been wounded, they have to live with the limitations and pain every day. For those who have lost family members, that hole in their lives will never be filled.
There is no higher patriotism than serving your country in combat. Sitting at home and paying taxes is more or less patriotic but in the end it just means that you were warm, safe and comfy while other good lives took the burden for you.
In short, you should have the good grace not to trumpet your lack of service as some sort of higher calling. It wasn't.
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.