Post: #51

Have some faith in the military, it's hardened grunts who call the shots when it counts. Weak men who endanger lives are given menial assignments and kept far from the line (drivers, weapon/ammo maintenance, etc). I remember a National Guard E5 (showed up drunk to most drills) putting a .50cal round through the hood of a Humvee in Kuwait, and he was stuck doing bullshit work the rest of the tour instead of QRF. Allowing women to enter combat roles does not create some sort of gender-neutral, 50-50 Starship Troopers atmosphere where women storm the beaches:



You'll find very few combat vets who are alarmed or threatened by allowing women. Hardly any will meet the standard, and those that do will never leave the wire.

Post: #52

http://www.moddb.com/groups/female-soldi...5#imagebox

the one on the right...

Post: #53

Speaking of lower standards: http://dailysurge.com/2015/06/not-a-sing...n-restart/

Quote:Have some faith in the military, it's hardened grunts who call the shots when it counts. Weak men who endanger lives are given menial assignments and kept far from the line (drivers, weapon/ammo maintenance, etc).

Bullshit. I dare you to find ANY top general with a valor citation or purple heart.

Better yet: http://www.johntreed.com/tournament.html

Post: #54

Also accurate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8KxC4Wo5hI

Post: #55

Quote:Bullshit. I dare you to find ANY top general with a valor citation or purple heart.

PL's and NCO's have no say? Or anyone else in the chain of command? The military is not GI Jane, senators and generals don't determine who does what in the field. This is peacetime BS for appearances and will fly out the window the second we're at war again.

Post: #56

(06-02-2015 11:36 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  This is peacetime BS for appearances and will fly out the window the second we're at war again.

Precisely. In times of peace everyone is looking for First World Problems. People forget about 14 years ago when two planes hit the World Trade Center and there was a real air of fear that World War III could've been started. There was no feminism then pushing women to go off to war, family and country were tight-knit as ever. I'm not going to get into the controversies and the conspiracies, but the time tested reoccurrence is that in times of war, women run and hide behind the men of the country to defend them. It has always been, and always will be.

Post: #57

(06-02-2015 11:36 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  

Quote:Bullshit. I dare you to find ANY top general with a valor citation or purple heart.

PL's and NCO's have no say? Or anyone else in the chain of command? The military is not GI Jane, senators and generals don't determine who does what in the field. This is peacetime BS for appearances and will fly out the window the second we're at war again.

Exactly how much time in service do you have? Yes PL's and NCO's have a say......as long as they're willing to commit career suicide by disagreeing with a superior. There are the occassional outliers: people who are exceptionally charming, those who are so technically competent as to be indispensable, but by and large the military's personnel management systems reward sycophancy over performance.

Also, PL's and NCO's have no influence over policy. With the exception of Pentagon NCO's(like the Sergeant Major the Army) your average line leader gets all of jack shit for input into policy changes such as reducing standards for women. They routinely poll us on those decisions (we got one asking if we wanted women in artillery positions which require firing 4-5 100lb shells per minute, something very few women can handle) and then routinely ignoring the results of those surveys when we don't tell them what they want to hear.

Post: #58

(06-01-2015 06:39 AM)Parlay44 Wrote:  I don't see what the problem is. Most countries have female soldiers. Maybe because our American girls are fat and lazy

Swear to god that girl looks like the Colombian chick from Medelin I met in Sheffield.

Post: #59

Good.
When you let women in, the slippery slope begins.
Just ask the Church of England.
Female ministers now want to identify God as female (if that's what people prefer of course).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion...posts.html

Basically god is genderfluid now.
Was not sure if it warranted its own thread so just posting it here.

Post: #60

I've changed my mind on this.

Let women join all ranks of the military. Let the caskets come back filled with precious snowflakes and see how much they like their equality.

Men will naturally drop out of the military once they see what a danger women are to a unit.

Post: #61

Well given the fact that no woman would rightfully pass the test to become an elite fighter unless she was olympic level, I still believe that it may happen one day only to satisfy the political correctness/pleasing everyone of this country.

It would change the dynamic of the forces greatly and I do not think a woman could honestly hang or deal with the pressure when shit hits the fan as well as a man could. This would cause more unnecessary casualties/etc.

And what about the guys fighting on the other end? How are they ever supposed to take our elite forces seriously with women in them? Especially when these nations have religions that don't even allow their women to wear 'revealing clothing'.

Why can't some women just accept the fact that nature has not given them the ability to compete with men in regards to physicality and play the roles that they were supposed to?

This reminds me of an AT&T commercial I saw lately that showed a woman pitching in the MLB and asking, "When the first female pitcher pitches in the Major Leagues, will you be there to see it?" My pops and I thought bullshit right away. That would never happen.

Post: #62

(06-01-2015 06:39 AM)Parlay44 Wrote:  I don't see what the problem is. Most countries have female soldiers. Maybe because our American girls are fat and lazy

Would love to see how that chic would do if her gun jams and she has to default to hand-to-hand combat with a man.

Post: #63

(06-02-2015 05:01 PM)AldoKelevra Wrote:  Well given the fact that no woman would rightfully pass the test to become an elite fighter unless she was olympic level, I still believe that it may happen one day only to satisfy the political correctness/pleasing everyone of this country.

It would change the dynamic of the forces greatly and I do not think a woman could honestly hang or deal with the pressure when shit hits the fan as well as a man could. This would cause more unnecessary casualties/etc.

And what about the guys fighting on the other end? How are they ever supposed to take our elite forces seriously with women in them? Especially when these nations have religions that don't even allow their women to wear 'revealing clothing'.

Why can't some women just accept the fact that nature has not given them the ability to compete with men in regards to physicality and play the roles that they were supposed to?

This reminds me of an AT&T commercial I saw lately that showed a woman pitching in the MLB and asking, "When the first female pitcher pitches in the Major Leagues, will you be there to see it?" My pops and I thought bullshit right away. That would never happen.

The point still stands that in times of war, political correctness gets thrown by the wayside. We do what we do to win the war. As I stated before, the navy SEAL motto is:

"It Pays to be a Winner"

not

"It pays to be a participant that loses thousands of lives to political correctness"

If they allow women, they'll become a weak force. The boys over at RVF can then conceptualize an elite force of men that workout and bang lots of tang, and over ride countries. Either that or the East will invade. Either way, its the end of an era as America as a superpower, the country has so many deep rooted problems that there is no way recovery is possible in a century.

Post: #64

"The point still stands that in times of war, political correctness gets thrown by the wayside. We do what we do to win the war. "

Tell that to Marcus Luttrell... Have you been anywhere near the military in the past dozen years?

The modern military is not a bunch of hard ass GI Joes running around, no matter how desperately you or I want it to be. Some guys here like Mr. Epic and Blick think the generals are a bunch of secretly red pill sociopaths who will do whatever it takes to win a war, morals and politics be damned. That just isn't the case. They didn't get to their post by being renegades, and they aren't about to start now.

"If they allow women, they'll become a weak force. "

Ah you're starting to retract what you said... Proceed.

Post: #65

I thought I read somewhere that a number of years ago the Israeli Army experimented with putting women into front line positions. They found that the men would put themselves unnecessarily at risk to protect their women comrades. They also found that when the women were captured by the enemy, they were usually extensively sexually brutalized which had a devastating affect on the men in their units. So, they withdrew women from fighting roles.

Post: #66

^^ truth.

Post: #67

(06-02-2015 07:40 PM)Carlos100 Wrote:  I thought I read somewhere that a number of years ago the Israeli Army experimented with putting women into front line positions. They found that the men would put themselves unnecessarily at risk to protect their women comrades. They also found that when the women were captured by the enemy, they were usually extensively sexually brutalized which had a devastating affect on the men in their units. So, they withdrew women from fighting roles.

Another forum member said that. I think he said the studies were never formally released. It's the sort of thing that all of us would predict, but in a liberal, feminist society, everyone would say that's a ridiculous prediction ... Until it actually happens, then they either avoid the topic altogether or say it's a necessary sacrifice.

Post: #68

(06-02-2015 08:49 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

(06-02-2015 07:40 PM)Carlos100 Wrote:  I thought I read somewhere that a number of years ago the Israeli Army experimented with putting women into front line positions. They found that the men would put themselves unnecessarily at risk to protect their women comrades. They also found that when the women were captured by the enemy, they were usually extensively sexually brutalized which had a devastating affect on the men in their units. So, they withdrew women from fighting roles.

Another forum member said that. I think he said the studies were never formally released. It's the sort of thing that all of us would predict, but in a liberal, feminist society, everyone would say that's a ridiculous prediction ... Until it actually happens, then they either avoid the topic altogether or say it's a necessary sacrifice.

In speench class in community college over 20 years ago, I did my persuasive speech on why women shouldn't be allowed in combat roles and I used the above example as one of the reasons. The guys in my class started smiling because they thought the women in the class were about to go off on me, but they didn't. The women just sat their silently and didn't say anything. I think it's because there weren't any feminist activists in the class.

Post: #69

(06-02-2015 07:30 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  The modern military is not a bunch of hard ass GI Joes running around, no matter how desperately you or I want it to be. Some guys here like Mr. Epic and Blick think the generals are a bunch of secretly red pill sociopaths who will do whatever it takes to win a war, morals and politics be damned. That just isn't the case. They didn't get to their post by being renegades, and they aren't about to start now.

What I've been saying and will link again. They got there by winning a "single elimination suck up tournament"

http://www.johntreed.com/tournament.html

Post: #70

(06-02-2015 07:30 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  "The point still stands that in times of war, political correctness gets thrown by the wayside. We do what we do to win the war. "

Tell that to Marcus Luttrell... Have you been anywhere near the military in the past dozen years?

The modern military is not a bunch of hard ass GI Joes running around, no matter how desperately you or I want it to be. Some guys here like Mr. Epic and Blick think the generals are a bunch of secretly red pill sociopaths who will do whatever it takes to win a war, morals and politics be damned. That just isn't the case. They didn't get to their post by being renegades, and they aren't about to start now.

"If they allow women, they'll become a weak force. "

Ah you're starting to retract what you said... Proceed.

No retraction at all, you and I both agree that women in the military is a bad idea. The thing we don't agree on are elite units decreasing the credentials to pass the courses. I seriously doubt that these units will decrease any standards. They may let women try, but only if the women match the existing credentials will they be able to join units.

Women should be military nurses, that is it.

Post: #71

(06-01-2015 06:39 AM)Parlay44 Wrote:  I don't see what the problem is. Most countries have female soldiers. Maybe because our American girls are fat and lazy

That's a joke. She wouldn't last more than a week in real combat.

Post: #72

(06-02-2015 10:30 PM)TheFinalEpic Wrote:  

(06-02-2015 07:30 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  "The point still stands that in times of war, political correctness gets thrown by the wayside. We do what we do to win the war. "

Tell that to Marcus Luttrell... Have you been anywhere near the military in the past dozen years?

The modern military is not a bunch of hard ass GI Joes running around, no matter how desperately you or I want it to be. Some guys here like Mr. Epic and Blick think the generals are a bunch of secretly red pill sociopaths who will do whatever it takes to win a war, morals and politics be damned. That just isn't the case. They didn't get to their post by being renegades, and they aren't about to start now.

"If they allow women, they'll become a weak force. "

Ah you're starting to retract what you said... Proceed.

No retraction at all, you and I both agree that women in the military is a bad idea. The thing we don't agree on are elite units decreasing the credentials to pass the courses. I seriously doubt that these units will decrease any standards. They may let women try, but only if the women match the existing credentials will they be able to join units.

Women should be military nurses, that is it.

You do realize that there's exactly zero precedent for this happening?

Post: #73

"The thing we don't agree on are elite units decreasing the credentials to pass the courses. "

The secret service? Fighter pilots? Crickets...

Post: #74

We're talking about elite frontline units such as the SEALs, we've already established this. Fighter pilots are not physical combat units, they fly planes. Secret service is not a combat unit.

Post: #75

The "frontline" designation doesn't matter. Obviously there's going to be some initial resistance from within those units but it's going to be quickly dealt with by threatening those officers with career-ending evaluations. The particularly stubborn ones will be reassigned and replaced with yes-men.


Also: some of you all who read the knowledge section will know where I'm headed with this next question. The elite rarely pushes any policy into action because they themselves believe in PC...they don't and they know better. Instead I'd suggest that attempting to put women into "elite" combat units "might" be a trial run for another agenda that's part of the long term planning. It also "might" have something in common with the worldwide push that's been putting women into high political offices.


And "might" may not mean "might", and I might be saying MUCH less than I know.