Topusaret
Deceased
I'm not saying a word, but it wasn't me...snort.
GOV/MIL Women Going to Ranger School and they will graduate or Else!!!!
- Thread starter Thomas Paine
- Start date
I'm not saying a word, but it wasn't me...snort.
Real men will not enlist.
To many gays and girls in the service now.
Weak need boys and girls will dominate.
WW-II
Prisoners of the Japs were torched in ways that even today many people can't imagine.
The japs were a mean tough enemy. They would behead, degut, split in two their POWs
People, young people, weak people could not stand against an enemy such as this.
I would NOT enlist in any of the services as they are today.
You won't find this calibur of people in some countries that want to kill us.
It is true that women did fight alonside our men in the battles of past years and centuries.
That same women does not exist today. There are a bunch of pampered little pets with NO idea of what is out there just licking their chops and waiting for them.
Ziva Daveed does not live here. She lives in Isreal.
There are women who have been trained and battle tested. They don't live here either.
I suggest that any women that could be a tough SOB will not enlist for the same reason Real men won't enlist.
lw
To many gays and girls in the service now.
Weak need boys and girls will dominate.
WW-II
Prisoners of the Japs were torched in ways that even today many people can't imagine.
The japs were a mean tough enemy. They would behead, degut, split in two their POWs
People, young people, weak people could not stand against an enemy such as this.
I would NOT enlist in any of the services as they are today.
You won't find this calibur of people in some countries that want to kill us.
It is true that women did fight alonside our men in the battles of past years and centuries.
That same women does not exist today. There are a bunch of pampered little pets with NO idea of what is out there just licking their chops and waiting for them.
Ziva Daveed does not live here. She lives in Isreal.
There are women who have been trained and battle tested. They don't live here either.
I suggest that any women that could be a tough SOB will not enlist for the same reason Real men won't enlist.
lw
Hfcomms
EN66iq
I know your thinking that you are making good points here but it's obvious to me that as a female you've never worn the uniform and frankly you don't have a real clue as to what your talking about. There is quite a bit of a difference between a foreign invader coming into your villages as during the American Revolution and Civil War where the women were right with the men fighting to keep their homes and children safe (even then the vast majority of the women did no actual fighting but were supporting their menfolk while they fought) as opposed to serving on a special forces unit and being sent thousands of miles away from home to fight a foreign war on somebodies home turf. Little bit of apples and oranges here. One of the worst mistakes we ever made was our politicians and promotion hungry senior officers to bow to the PC pressure to allow females to serve in combat arms of any kind. Not saying that some women can't hack it because a few of them can but the military can't afford to get bogged down into this social engineering. A nation who sends it's women to fight it's wars (imo) has had it's cheese slide off it's cracker. I say this as one who served for many years and most of the others who have served feel the same way. If females wish to be in the military there are many other areas and ways for them to serve but not in combat arms.
LightEcho
Has No Life - Lives on TB
Some people just don't get it. What kind of moron fights to go to war? What kind of beast relishes the role of combat?
As one said earlier, it is a freeking political game to get a ticket punched for promotion. Women who push for this are among the saddest examples of delusion. It is like fighting with fellow prisoners to be executed first.
The drain on a military force that needs to be concerned about mixed sexes in combat is a notch against combat effectiveness.
As one said earlier, it is a freeking political game to get a ticket punched for promotion. Women who push for this are among the saddest examples of delusion. It is like fighting with fellow prisoners to be executed first.
The drain on a military force that needs to be concerned about mixed sexes in combat is a notch against combat effectiveness.
originally from Yank Magazine 1945 interviews
pdf file so have to use link to read or see photos
http://www.oldmagazinearticles.com/GREAT-RAID_CABANATUAN_PRISON_CAMP-ARTICLE_pdf
http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/army-letting-diversity-trump-winning-wars/
Army letting diversity trump winning wars
Gen. Odierno: 'This is a progressive way forward'
by Bob Unruh
It seems that the old military song “The Army Goes Rolling Along” may need some revisions. Especially where it says, “We’ll fight with all our might, as the Army keeps rolling along.”
That’s because of the military’s new move to open up previously closed job assignments, such as infantry, to women, according to the nonpartisan Center for Military Readiness.
The move was launched in February when Defense Department officials Vee Penrod and Army Maj. Gen. Gary Patton eliminated some rules regarding women soldiers. They promised at the time that assignments for women in or near direct ground combat would be “only the beginning,” the organization noted.
The move was affirmed yesterday when Chief of Staff of the Army Gen. Raymond Odierno spoke with reporters.
“This is a progressive way forward,” he said. ” … We’re opening up the occupational specialties that currently women serve in, down to infantry and armor battalions. And we will run this for several months. And my guess is, based on my experience in Iraq and what I’ve seen in Afghanistan, we’ll then move forward with a more permanent solution inside of the Army probably sometime this fall.”
The CRM statement released by its director, Elaine Donnelly, explained the situation this way: “The National Football League does not pursue ‘diversity’ by training female players for non-lethal combat on the gridiron. Even the best female athletes would not survive the grueling training and punishing clashes against aggressive male opponents. Social experiments that override recognition of individual merit are not acceptable in pro football. Every team wants to win the Super Bowl.”
But in the case of the U.S. military, women now are being invited “to train for infantry battalions that engage in lethal ground combat – violent conflicts in which lives and missions are at risk. The stated motive is not to improve combat readiness, it is ‘diversity’ and ‘equal opportunities for women to excel.’”
Odierno said just this week “more than 200 women began reporting to the maneuver battalions in nine of our brigade combat teams, selected to participate in the exception to the direct ground combat assignment rule.”
He said other rules were rescinded to open up “six military occupational specialties and 80 units, more than 13,000 positions to women, opening up new opportunities to our female soldiers.”
But a report posted by the National Health Institute cites studies showing that women are “approximately 52 percent and 66 percent as strong as the men in the upper and lower body respectively. The men were also stronger relative to lean body mass.”
So where are the military benefits to having someone physically less strong being put in a position of carrying an injured soldier, hefting a 70-plus pound pack and fighting a pitched firefight at the end of a days-long trek?
CMR has said the Pentagon’s policy “is doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons.”
“Instead of putting the needs of the military first, the Defense Department is taking incremental steps to implement the deeply flawed recommendations of the Military Diversity Leadership Commission,” CMR said.
Its report, “From Representation to Inclusion: Diversity Leadership for the 21st Century,” comes not from battle-scarred veterans but from “civilian military ‘equal opportunity’ professionals who assign priority to ‘diversity,’ not military effectiveness,” CMR said.
The recommendations concede “diversity” is not about “treating everyone the same,” but instead its focus is on “inclusion.”
Congress already has been warned of the problem. In a Congressional Research Service Report on women in combat, CMR reported, the authors point out: “Notably absent in this language is any mention of the effects of military readiness such changes may produce.”
The military has said that starting this month, both men and women in entry-level training and male Marines from a Ground Combat Element will be asked to volunteer for three physical tests: heavy machine gun lift (72 pounds), casualty evacuation and a march under load (more than 70 pounds).
“The same tasks in an actual combat environment are often performed while attacking the enemy after a long march, in bad weather, when troops are exhausted, short-handed and under fire,” CMR reported.
None of the concerns reflect on the bravery, ability and sacrifices of women in the military, CRM said.
But besides the very real impact on a military’s capabilities, the women themselves are at risk, CRM reported.
A number of studies have fond “there is no way to treat women exactly like men in training without increasing debilitating injuries at far higher rates among women than men.”
A British test of “gender-free” training found that injuries among women rose 200 percent, and Britain ultimately decided women would not be assigned to land combat units.
A study reported in Military Medicine in 2007 said the career implications of injuries include a failure to complete a term of service, a failure to advance in rank and a failure to re-enlist.
“Since the announced goal is ‘equal opportunity to excel,’ women will ‘excel,’ no matter how many compromises are made to achieve that result. To make ‘equality’ permanent, trainers will simply drop or modify exercises that injure women at rates far greater than men,” the CMR analysis said. “Within a single generation, no one will remember the previous regimen, resulting in infantry training programs that are less challenging for male Marines.”
But, the report said, remaining unexplained is how any of this will benefit fighting forces.
The organization said the key question remains how would assignment of women to front-line combat posts help combat readiness.
The CMR also long has reported on the advance of permission for same-sex soldiers to serve openly in the U.S. military.
The group’s most recent report documented that sexual misbehavior is on the rise.
CMR completed an analysis of the the reports, including the overall military assessment of sexual assaults as well as the Army’s Gold Book report. It cites 515 rapes, 414 aggravated sexual assaults and 349 forcible sodomies documented by just the Criminal Investigation Command in 2011.
“Pentagon officials regularly praise their own work and proclaim undeserved ‘success,’ even though evidence of sexual misconduct, both consensual and non-consensual, continues to accelerate, year after year,” Donnelly said.
“It is time to reconsider and change flawed policies that are weakening the culture of the only military we have.”
In December 2010, Congress repealed the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy established by President Clinton that allowed homosexuals to remain in the military on the condition they not make a public issue of their sexual lifestyle.
The new law, for the first time in U.S. history, allows homosexual members to openly acknowledge their sexual choices.
Among the details in the reports: While, in 2006, 5 percent of the violent sexual assaults have been against men, recent reports now put that figure at 12 to 14 percent.
The Army said it is “currently monitoring same-gender sex crime for a potential increase in forcible sodomy and other sex offenses related to the disassociation of homosexuality from the crime itself.”
Army letting diversity trump winning wars
Gen. Odierno: 'This is a progressive way forward'
by Bob Unruh
It seems that the old military song “The Army Goes Rolling Along” may need some revisions. Especially where it says, “We’ll fight with all our might, as the Army keeps rolling along.”
That’s because of the military’s new move to open up previously closed job assignments, such as infantry, to women, according to the nonpartisan Center for Military Readiness.
The move was launched in February when Defense Department officials Vee Penrod and Army Maj. Gen. Gary Patton eliminated some rules regarding women soldiers. They promised at the time that assignments for women in or near direct ground combat would be “only the beginning,” the organization noted.
The move was affirmed yesterday when Chief of Staff of the Army Gen. Raymond Odierno spoke with reporters.
“This is a progressive way forward,” he said. ” … We’re opening up the occupational specialties that currently women serve in, down to infantry and armor battalions. And we will run this for several months. And my guess is, based on my experience in Iraq and what I’ve seen in Afghanistan, we’ll then move forward with a more permanent solution inside of the Army probably sometime this fall.”
The CRM statement released by its director, Elaine Donnelly, explained the situation this way: “The National Football League does not pursue ‘diversity’ by training female players for non-lethal combat on the gridiron. Even the best female athletes would not survive the grueling training and punishing clashes against aggressive male opponents. Social experiments that override recognition of individual merit are not acceptable in pro football. Every team wants to win the Super Bowl.”
But in the case of the U.S. military, women now are being invited “to train for infantry battalions that engage in lethal ground combat – violent conflicts in which lives and missions are at risk. The stated motive is not to improve combat readiness, it is ‘diversity’ and ‘equal opportunities for women to excel.’”
Odierno said just this week “more than 200 women began reporting to the maneuver battalions in nine of our brigade combat teams, selected to participate in the exception to the direct ground combat assignment rule.”
He said other rules were rescinded to open up “six military occupational specialties and 80 units, more than 13,000 positions to women, opening up new opportunities to our female soldiers.”
But a report posted by the National Health Institute cites studies showing that women are “approximately 52 percent and 66 percent as strong as the men in the upper and lower body respectively. The men were also stronger relative to lean body mass.”
So where are the military benefits to having someone physically less strong being put in a position of carrying an injured soldier, hefting a 70-plus pound pack and fighting a pitched firefight at the end of a days-long trek?
CMR has said the Pentagon’s policy “is doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons.”
“Instead of putting the needs of the military first, the Defense Department is taking incremental steps to implement the deeply flawed recommendations of the Military Diversity Leadership Commission,” CMR said.
Its report, “From Representation to Inclusion: Diversity Leadership for the 21st Century,” comes not from battle-scarred veterans but from “civilian military ‘equal opportunity’ professionals who assign priority to ‘diversity,’ not military effectiveness,” CMR said.
The recommendations concede “diversity” is not about “treating everyone the same,” but instead its focus is on “inclusion.”
Congress already has been warned of the problem. In a Congressional Research Service Report on women in combat, CMR reported, the authors point out: “Notably absent in this language is any mention of the effects of military readiness such changes may produce.”
The military has said that starting this month, both men and women in entry-level training and male Marines from a Ground Combat Element will be asked to volunteer for three physical tests: heavy machine gun lift (72 pounds), casualty evacuation and a march under load (more than 70 pounds).
“The same tasks in an actual combat environment are often performed while attacking the enemy after a long march, in bad weather, when troops are exhausted, short-handed and under fire,” CMR reported.
None of the concerns reflect on the bravery, ability and sacrifices of women in the military, CRM said.
But besides the very real impact on a military’s capabilities, the women themselves are at risk, CRM reported.
A number of studies have fond “there is no way to treat women exactly like men in training without increasing debilitating injuries at far higher rates among women than men.”
A British test of “gender-free” training found that injuries among women rose 200 percent, and Britain ultimately decided women would not be assigned to land combat units.
A study reported in Military Medicine in 2007 said the career implications of injuries include a failure to complete a term of service, a failure to advance in rank and a failure to re-enlist.
“Since the announced goal is ‘equal opportunity to excel,’ women will ‘excel,’ no matter how many compromises are made to achieve that result. To make ‘equality’ permanent, trainers will simply drop or modify exercises that injure women at rates far greater than men,” the CMR analysis said. “Within a single generation, no one will remember the previous regimen, resulting in infantry training programs that are less challenging for male Marines.”
But, the report said, remaining unexplained is how any of this will benefit fighting forces.
The organization said the key question remains how would assignment of women to front-line combat posts help combat readiness.
The CMR also long has reported on the advance of permission for same-sex soldiers to serve openly in the U.S. military.
The group’s most recent report documented that sexual misbehavior is on the rise.
CMR completed an analysis of the the reports, including the overall military assessment of sexual assaults as well as the Army’s Gold Book report. It cites 515 rapes, 414 aggravated sexual assaults and 349 forcible sodomies documented by just the Criminal Investigation Command in 2011.
“Pentagon officials regularly praise their own work and proclaim undeserved ‘success,’ even though evidence of sexual misconduct, both consensual and non-consensual, continues to accelerate, year after year,” Donnelly said.
“It is time to reconsider and change flawed policies that are weakening the culture of the only military we have.”
In December 2010, Congress repealed the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy established by President Clinton that allowed homosexuals to remain in the military on the condition they not make a public issue of their sexual lifestyle.
The new law, for the first time in U.S. history, allows homosexual members to openly acknowledge their sexual choices.
Among the details in the reports: While, in 2006, 5 percent of the violent sexual assaults have been against men, recent reports now put that figure at 12 to 14 percent.
The Army said it is “currently monitoring same-gender sex crime for a potential increase in forcible sodomy and other sex offenses related to the disassociation of homosexuality from the crime itself.”
Spanky
Senior Member
This is current. I am currently serving and the females do not have to run as fast as the males. Do a simple google search for APFT Scorecard. Shows you the disparity. I have known plenty of women that could out run me but I have yet to meet a woman that can out ruck me carrying 70 to 80 pounds.
One point that needs to be considered in terms of the difference between women fighting in the Civil War and American Revolution vs fighting in the US Armed forces in some 3rd world cesspool is simply this: Women can and will fight like tigers to protect home and family. What's going on in our armed forces now has NO resemblance to that... I doubt few are idealistic enough to really believe that they're "fighting for freedom" anymore. Heck, even our <choke, gag> commander in chief (no way am I capitalizing that) says they're "fighting for 'me'".
I believe any woman who wants to do a man's job- and I mean ANY man's job- cop, firefighter, combat soldier- whatever- needs to be able to meet ALL the necessary physical standards they set for the men in the first place. I don't care about height and weight... but by God, if a man is required to carry a certain weight pack and run a certain speed to qualify, then the woman needs to do so as well. If she can't- well, that's a shame, but she doesn't qualify. Neither will many men.
I just can't imagine that those standards were put in place in the first place without a LOT of forethought and understanding of what was necessary to do the job and SURVIVE. Anyone who is given a pass and let slide with lesser performance is not only risking their own lives, but the lives of those in their squad who will be depending on them in extremis
There certainly must be MANY other important jobs that women are physically qualified to do... even though I think having females and co-ed units is also a disaster. At the least, they should understand that pregnancy is not only an immediately disqualifying condition, but that it will result in an "other than honorable" discharge AND the loss of all their VA, etc benefits. While it takes two to tango, it's obviously the woman who ends up physically unfit for the job (and with a minor child who NEEDS her, as well)
Feminism is another mental disorder, right along with liberalism.
Summerthyme
I believe any woman who wants to do a man's job- and I mean ANY man's job- cop, firefighter, combat soldier- whatever- needs to be able to meet ALL the necessary physical standards they set for the men in the first place. I don't care about height and weight... but by God, if a man is required to carry a certain weight pack and run a certain speed to qualify, then the woman needs to do so as well. If she can't- well, that's a shame, but she doesn't qualify. Neither will many men.
I just can't imagine that those standards were put in place in the first place without a LOT of forethought and understanding of what was necessary to do the job and SURVIVE. Anyone who is given a pass and let slide with lesser performance is not only risking their own lives, but the lives of those in their squad who will be depending on them in extremis
There certainly must be MANY other important jobs that women are physically qualified to do... even though I think having females and co-ed units is also a disaster. At the least, they should understand that pregnancy is not only an immediately disqualifying condition, but that it will result in an "other than honorable" discharge AND the loss of all their VA, etc benefits. While it takes two to tango, it's obviously the woman who ends up physically unfit for the job (and with a minor child who NEEDS her, as well)
Feminism is another mental disorder, right along with liberalism.
Summerthyme
Thomas Paine
Has No Life - Lives on TB
Not to disparage the fairer sex but taking care of an infant and or toddler are you carrying 50 pounds of extra equipment in a rucksack with another 10-25 pounds of weapons. Are you doing jungle/swamp, or mountain training ,making air assaults , doing patrols, with little or no breaks, no grabbing a cup of coffee with Marge or whoever, no play dates, can you take care of business under those circumstances? It ain't just a leadership school it's a finishing school for the lightfighter. It more important than a bloody ticket punch.
Boise Rocker
Conservative Rock Guru
I don't have any combat experience, having served entirely in peacetime, but do have a number of 45+ day field problems under my belt (NTC x 2, multiple Graf and Hohenfels rotations, Reforger, etc.). Not sure how it is today, but back then, hygiene (when we had time for it) was often done off the back of the 113, using a canteen cup, water can, or maybe a canvas shower bag, hung off the Ma Deuce barrel. No privacy, no field showers, no shower runs, often no hot water at all, and definitely not a thorough cleaning. Excuse the gross details, but many a man developed crotch rot out in the field. And that was without having anyone shooting at us, or being in a MOPP environment. There's no way in hell a woman could've done that.
And don't even get me started on the sheer upper body strength it takes to be a combat arms soldier (in my case, a 19D Cav Scout). A TOW 2B missile weighs about 70 pounds, whether you're a man or a woman, and you have to lift it over your head to load it into the TOW launcher on a Bradley or ITV (yeah, I'm old) using nothing but brute strength. After about five or six times, even a tough, macho SOB, like I like to think I was, starts to get whupped. It's also miserable as hell breaking track on a 113 or a Brad, and I don't want to even think about how much it sucked for my treadhead buddies. Track blocks don't come in lighter female versions. That's why I always laughed when I heard some female GI bragging about how she could pass the PT test up to male standards. Ha! Pushups are one thing, but kneeling on your knees in the back of an ITV and lifting a 70 pound missile over your head -- repeatedly -- to load the launcher is another thing altogether. Or changing a busted track in the cold and knee-deep mud of Hohenfels in November...sorry, but a 115 pound female ain't gonna cut it. Much less multiple 115 pound females on a tank, Bradley or artillery crew.
And that stuff is nowhere near the hell of Ranger School, or combat. The Chicoms are laughing so hard they're pi**ing their pants, thinking of how easy it's going to be to kick our a**es.
And don't even get me started on the sheer upper body strength it takes to be a combat arms soldier (in my case, a 19D Cav Scout). A TOW 2B missile weighs about 70 pounds, whether you're a man or a woman, and you have to lift it over your head to load it into the TOW launcher on a Bradley or ITV (yeah, I'm old) using nothing but brute strength. After about five or six times, even a tough, macho SOB, like I like to think I was, starts to get whupped. It's also miserable as hell breaking track on a 113 or a Brad, and I don't want to even think about how much it sucked for my treadhead buddies. Track blocks don't come in lighter female versions. That's why I always laughed when I heard some female GI bragging about how she could pass the PT test up to male standards. Ha! Pushups are one thing, but kneeling on your knees in the back of an ITV and lifting a 70 pound missile over your head -- repeatedly -- to load the launcher is another thing altogether. Or changing a busted track in the cold and knee-deep mud of Hohenfels in November...sorry, but a 115 pound female ain't gonna cut it. Much less multiple 115 pound females on a tank, Bradley or artillery crew.
And that stuff is nowhere near the hell of Ranger School, or combat. The Chicoms are laughing so hard they're pi**ing their pants, thinking of how easy it's going to be to kick our a**es.
Hfcomms
EN66iq
That brings back some memories. When I was enlisted and before ocs I was an 11H with the ITOW and we still had M151 mutt's to work with. We had a gun jeep and an ammo jeep when I first got in being straight leg infantry and then our brigade had a TOE change and was reorganized to mechanized with the 113's and ITV's. I can't see many females humping those rounds for very long. Brings back some fond (and not so fond) memories.
cheesesteaks
Senior Member
I don't think the people who are for this understand the hell you go through just to earn a spot in the special forces. Maybe one of the Rangers out there can describe what it is like the final week of training. I can see many SF leaving the military over this.