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 ...
The sodomy will continue until the morale improves... basically the DOD policy.
And by the way this is a Congressional call and Congress has never said women are allowed in direct combat roles.
***********
Very good point.
Here are some interesting facts about military experience in the congress courtesy of the Congressional Research Service:
“At the beginning of the 113th Congress, there were 108 Members (20% of the total membership) who had served or were serving in the military, 10 fewer than at the beginning of the 112th Congress (118 Members) and 12 fewer than in the 111th Congress (120 members).
The number of veterans in the 113th Congress reflects the trend of steady decline in recent decades in the number of Members who have served in the military. For example, 64% of the members of the 97th Congress (1981-1982) were veterans; and in the 92nd Congress (1971-1972), 73% of the Members were veterans.”
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42964.pdf
The problem is twofold, in that few women, but some, can meet the physical requirements. However, the flip side of this is that the *best* male warriors often have a very strong instinct to protect females in danger.
You get some unstoppable warrior type, a real Rambo, and put a female near him in real, or just perceived danger, and Rambo might turn to Jello.
And no number of female soldiers will make up for losing even a few Rambo-types.
Importantly, there are a lot of men who would be more than willing to send female soldiers “out to draw fire”, but the vast majority of such men are pencil pushers and glass jaws not worth their salt in combat.
And this goes to an even deeper false paradigm in the military: that *any* guy can be trained to be a warrior.
In truth, you are lucky if 1 in 100 *combat* soldiers are “real warriors”. The rest are just along to hold their coat. And the ratio of combat soldiers to combat support and combat service support soldiers is something like 1:20.
The idea of “every man a soldier” only really goes back to the age of Napoleon, and the creation of mass armies. And even then, all the way through to Vietnam, on average hundreds of thousands, or even millions of bullets had to be expended for each enemy bullet casualty.
Except when fired from the gun of a real warrior, in which case, many or most of his bullets would cause an enemy casualty.
So, the bottom line is that putting women in combat roles will just end up getting more women and men killed, and many fewer missions accomplished. But those obsessed with putting women in combat roles don’t give a shiat about that.
He was not rebuking your statement
I think all liberal women and feminists should sign up and serve.
“I once held a door open for a lady at a store and she got very ticked off at me, said she can do it herself and she didn’t need a man to do it. I said that’s fine, I don’t care if you wanted me to or not, if my mother caught me not doing it,”
Had that happen to me more than twice in a year. I didn’t care about their pouty crap because it’s been instinct to us since we were kids. Even the time when I’m on the train and you’re the only dude sitting down and the old lady refuses to sit, it makes you uncomfortable so I just stand.
“This is my rifle, this is my gun. This is for fighting, this is for fun.”
Fox news had a female gunnery Sgt and capt marines on this morning, both no longer active.
The insisted the failure was because the women weren’t allowed to train for the standard. They said the standard should be the same for both sxes.
The message was that with training most women should be able to meet the standard. At least the minimum.
haha, you too? That happened to me on a bus in Kiev. I just stood too and the old lady still refused to sit, stubborn old communist resistor that she was heh.
We don't have chivalry because we don't need chivalry. The demand for chivalry has taken a nose dive. There are more than one reason for this, but a big one is technology.
Technology has made everyone richer; by leveraging the power of technology, everyone has more power over their environment, more control of their personal circumstances. This cheapens the value of chivalry. Who needs a man to hold the door when a computer opens the door for you.
If there is a real war with a real enemy at our gates, all this will be swept away in a flash. The women in the army will melt away, the homosexuals in the army will stay if they can contribute physically and mentally to killing the enemy, but their behavior patterns will not be tolerated. The instinct for species survival will kick in, and homosexuals have nothing to offer in this domain.
Women and homosexuals in the military are just two out of many manifestations of our very wealthy society. When we can no longer afford them, they will vanish like a morning fog. For now, we can afford them.
Whoa; calm down there; read what I wrote!
I was only saying there could be someone serving their country in the old days, who kept their sexual abnormality to theirself and just wanted to serve.
Much different than what is going on now.
In times of war our armed forces should proudly march towards the enemy with baskets of fruit, flowers and food to give to our comrades on the other side.
**********
And while we’re at it send in the First Designers Batallion to fabuoulsy re-decorate their homes in trendy new colors.
Modern left wingers don’t go to battle. They send us to battle with no idea or desire to win. They are making a statement with young Americans blood. May The Lord grant a day of reckoning for the left.
I think we should have women 5’6” added to basket ball teams, and have baskets lower in the name of fairness and equality, to get the point across...
It was not enough for God and His lot to be content living wholesome lives, He had to also risk His own life (of His Son) by not letting them wander blind and by opening the doors for them. The satan possession of behavior inside them does not like our independence... only the government or some.pimp linguistics must do it iinstead.
Weren’t ALLOWED to train??? That claim is ludicrous on its face.
Me too. Its one thing if the Chi Coms are invading Atlanta but sending women overseas to fight on the frontlines of foreign misadventures is beyond the pale. They are not physically up to it and I would even project they are not emotionally up to it.
On another front picture the American public watching women prisoners being beheaded on Al Jazeera. That is what will happen just as sure as we are talking about it.
“We live in a world of efeminate men trashing chivalry and hiding behind skirts like liftle girls flattering daddy by tattle tales”.
You can’t be talking about Barry the Bold.
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.