Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Penetta removes military ban on women in combat


  • Please log in to reply
98 replies to this topic

#46 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,003 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 01:25 AM

No, not at all.
Soldiers in combat arms roles (what's in question here) are pretty dependent on those to their left and right. People in support positions usually do not find themselves in such predicaments and are more apt to sexualized a female.
A female in combat arms will be very protected against sexual predators in a combat zone.


didn't think of it like that and that's comforting if true, though it's frustrating that a lower risk of sexual assault is accompanied by a higher risk of dying in an unnecessary war

#47 Kevin Greene

Kevin Greene

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,490 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 01:40 AM

Can't wait until a Mom on the front lines is captured and held hostage while Geraldo Rivera has a live spot in Prime Time with her 4 year old baby girl crying for Mommy to come home.

#48 PhillyB

PhillyB

    hug it chug it football

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,745 posts
  • LocationGreensboro

Posted 24 January 2013 - 01:46 AM

Can't wait until a Mom on the front lines is captured and held hostage while Geraldo Rivera has a live spot in Prime Time with her 4 year old baby girl crying for Mommy to come home.


this sort of thing is what fundamentally worries me about it. major ramifications

#49 googoodan

googoodan

    Memberest

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,387 posts
  • LocationBayside

Posted 24 January 2013 - 02:50 AM

didn't think of it like that and that's comforting if true, though it's frustrating that a lower risk of sexual assault is accompanied by a higher risk of dying in an unnecessary war


Unfortunately with the rate of sexual assaults on college campuses being nearly identical to that of a combat zone, you may be right.

I was looking at stats published in huff po about sexual assaults in a combat zone. I found it odd they said "most" offenders were other service members, but never told the sex of the perpetrators.

I know male on male assaults happen more than anyone would think. I wonder if the same is true for female on female. I know of one weird case, but it was more a sick form of payback than sex.

#50 TruCatzFan

TruCatzFan

    Phil 4:13

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,470 posts
  • LocationAlaska

Posted 24 January 2013 - 05:13 AM

***Disclaimer***

In no way do the views or opinions in this post represent The U.S. Army. This is just the opinion of one person, and this one person does not speak on behalf of The US Miitary. Any opinions expressed are the opinions of the person currently typing

(Have to put that in there "by law"... These are my opinions and in no way should be construed as the overall opinion by any Branch of Service)

Shame on the rest of you ( you kbow who you are)(if you dont then im not talking to you)for not having put a similar blurb in there prior to your opinions.

This is/was a HORRIBLE idea/decision at the highest of levels. Here shortly I will hit 11 yrs on Active Duty. There is no doubt in my mind, that this was a politically driven event. That's all I'm gonna say about that piece of it.

Now lets move to them actually holding a Combat MOS, or being down in a Ranger Bn, or even worse, heaven forbid an operator on an ODA or even a higher eschelon...

How did America deal with the female last hostage situation in Iraq? Not too well at all... And SHE was taken and left at a Fuggin Hospital... The rescue efforts were met with no opposition or force... Trust me, I would know... That's all ill say about that.

Now lets think about a female rubbing elbows with a male and putting rounds down range against an aggressive force where WE are severely out numbered... (This happens more than any civilian reading this could possibly imagine) without getting too far into the weeds... Lets just leave it at this...

A woman will be a liability to any ground force, or mission that requires no poo danger and let me tell you why... It's not that they're not as strong, can't shoot as well, not as fast... I could go on and on with common sense comparisons, but you're getting the point. It's not because of any of those things... It's because they have a vagina... Plain and simple! Let me explain...

Men are pre programmed as Protectors... Any Father out there knows this all too well, especially when their wives do something (no matter how small) that could possibly put our kids in any serious risk... We call them on it... They get defensive... But you made the right call... That was just an example.... Now, just having a woman on a BASIC rifle team (I'm not even gonna entertain anything advanced) the moment a woman is put onto that team it's gonna be weaker and here's why... And no I'm not sexist, just being real here...

If ANYTHING goes wrong, if she's wounded... Anything... There are protocols of what we have been trained to do, that should immediately go into action... Here's the problem though, if you put a female into that equation, ALL of that training is out the window! We have been genetically made up to PROTECT women... If she's hurt, somebody, multiple people will rush to her aid putting more people's lives in jeopardy. At that point you will not accomplish the mission, you can not remain in the offensive... You are now in fall back mode and retreating while laying down suppressive fire to get your guys and gal outta there.

There will be too many men trying to be "The Hero" and not thinking about the mission. You could say that they lack discipline, and perhaps you're right... But the bottom line is this... A man would go to much further lengths to protect a woman, than even his best friend. It's in our genetics... And that can't be broken. Experienced operators at the highest levels MIGHT be able to continue mission, but even they would be tested in that situation. And they're talking about putting them with a bunch of dumb kids str8 outta high school with minimal experience, and a cherry ass butter bar trying to advance his career by being a hero...

Mark my words on this... This will be a disaster! It's gonna be a PR nightmare the moment that something goes wrong.

On the flip side, the very first time that a woman saves a mans life (it can and has already happened)(I've seen it) but when this happens in an infantry combat arms MOS... She will be over blown as some special hero just because she's a woman, when men have been doing the same poo for decades!

It's gonna be all fine and dandy... Until poo hits the fan. Nice fluff/feel good pieces in the media until it hits the fan. This is why NO Commander in Chief should ever be allowed that office without Active Duty Experience. Anyone who disagrees with me in this will point to High ranking Generals that are also supporting it. My question to you is this... Do you really think that they truly believe that this is a good idea? I can assure you that they don't. I can also assure you that they are being promised GREAT things/positions in the future... Until of course the next Benghazi happens... And their services are no longer needed because when they tried to do whatwasuktimately the right thing (Sending a QRF) to the location.... Somebody "higher" called that very same QRF and told then to turn around! Anyone like to guess where that General is now? He's "retired" forced into retirement with no media coverage... The true hero's don't have voices, because they are taken from them.

Men and women are different. If we all were honest about it... And we truly cared about American lives... This won't happen. The sad reality is they really don't care! That's why it will happen. Do you think they care about blood on their hands? They don't... I've seen it time and time again. The people on the ground who knew you care... But THEY could care less... I've been to way too many funerals...I've been lucky, I've been blessed to be sitting here with a family and a son... With all 5 limbs, and ten fingers and 10 toes. Others have not will NEVER BE FORGOTTEN!

Onto somewhat different topic... Anyone think that it's odd that Veterans are on a National "Terrorist Watch List"... Ever wonder why all the retired cops, and veterans seem to be labeled as "Crazies" maybe it's because we obviously know how fugged up things really are. We've seen politics at their best (Lol yeah right) that's why current law enforcement, current soldiers, and all the retired guys have been getting ready for years... It's not an accident!

I could go on and on with this for days, but my guess is I've lost 90% of you by now, so I'll just stop.

I can assure you of one thing, my family won't want for a damned thing... Get out and talk to your local law enforcement officials, if you see a veteran, shake their hands... Buy em a drink and pick their brains....

The problem with that is... Well there are lots of problems... I'll give you this set if advice... The people who talk about the crazy shut the most, have actually done the least! Those of us who know, don't volunteer info... And we only tlk about that poo with other people who have been there and done that. The young guys these days wanna sound cool... Hell, naw... I'll stop right there...

Sorry for the novel

#51 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,003 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 05:46 AM

Posted Image

#52 Brokenbad

Brokenbad

    Cam is my hero

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,550 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 07:21 AM

194th?


I'm not an MP, I'm with 5th

#53 NanceUSMC

NanceUSMC

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,148 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 10:01 AM

The ban is lifted, but nothing will change.

Military females will continue to constantly get pregnant, let train bangs be ran on them and yell rape; and generally contribute nothing, all the while avoiding deployments like the plague.

And yes, female standards for fitness are absurd. There was a thirty year old female in my unit who was a "freak of nature" for her "fitness". To make a perfect score on her pt test, she needed (roughly) 17 push ups, 30 sit ups, and run two miles in 20 minutes.

I swear to god you could break both of my arms and I could muster 17 push ups in two minutes. Most anyone could walk two miles in twenty minutes.


I'm gonna have to disagree with that... That's a 6MPH pace, which is far from the 4MPH (15 min mile) pace used for force marches, which itself is no joke (for walking, specifically)... 6MPH is no walk...

But I do agree with you totally that the fitness reqs are absurd... 30 situps are a joke... 17 push ups aren't far behind... And any COMBAT troop that can only muster those reqs, along with a couple of 10 MINUTE miles on a run, would be a liability to their unit...

#54 Gazi

Gazi

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,798 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 10:06 AM

Remember when the blacks were kept out of combat because they were inferior, a liability and a distraction to other men?

#55 NanceUSMC

NanceUSMC

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,148 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 10:18 AM

Remember when the blacks were kept out of combat because they were inferior, a liability and a distraction to other men?


Any PERSON who cannot exceed (drastically) those fitness requirements, is a liability to their unit and themselves in a combat environment...

Regardless of race or gender...

#56 boostownsme

boostownsme

    Junior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 172 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 10:21 AM

When they quit having separate female/male obstacles and courses in Marine boot camp, then I might start to think about it. Oh, and how about pull ups instead of a flex arm hang, that shiz is ridiculous. I've seen many a female with a 300 PFT unable to hang in a basic combat or rescue course. If you haven't been in you have no clue what you're talking about as far as integrating females into frontline combat units.

#57 Gazi

Gazi

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,798 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 10:26 AM

Any PERSON who cannot exceed (drastically) those fitness requirements, is a liability to their unit and themselves in a combat environment...

Regardless of race or gender...


Agreed. Any PERSON. I've been around females in the military who could run 13:00 2 mile and absolutely destroy push ups and sit ups. So why should they be denied?

They can probably destroy half the posters in this thread alone in arm wrestling (won't name names :) )

#58 NanceUSMC

NanceUSMC

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,148 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 10:32 AM

Agreed. Any PERSON. I've been around females in the military who could run 13:00 2 mile and absolutely destroy push ups and sit ups. So why should they be denied?

They can probably destroy half the posters in this thread alone in arm wrestling (won't name names :) )


I think it's a poor decision for other reasons...

That said, if women want to potentially die (or, more horrifically, be taken prisoner of war) for their country, and can perform at the required physical standards of the military, then so be it... I think women are more than capable of performing the duties...

#59 Cage

Cage

    Killer

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 489 posts
  • LocationHustlin' in the streets

Posted 24 January 2013 - 10:46 AM

Remember when the blacks were kept out of combat because they were inferior, a liability and a distraction to other men?


Not quiet the same. Many men (of any race) could not pass a basic infantry course. If they require equal standards for women this will be a non-issue because 99% of women just won't be able to do it. Their bodies are working against them. Lack of upper body strength, lower lung capacity etc (These are all indisputable scientific fact; unlike racist bs).

#60 Gazi

Gazi

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,798 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 10:58 AM

Not quiet the same. Many men (of any race) could not pass a basic infantry course. If they require equal standards for women this will be a non-issue because 99% of women just won't be able to do it. Their bodies are working against them. Lack of upper body strength, lower lung capacity etc (These are all indisputable scientific fact; unlike racist bs).

Let's say your numbers, not supported by any research and science btw, are correct. That leaves 1% of those who know they can and want to do it.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.