Send your daughter to war

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davsel

Simple Biology - Testosterone vs. Estrogen.
Throughout the animal kingdom, males and females are designed differently in order to best fulfill their roles.
This was once plainly obvious to all.

When there are enough men to do the fighting, it is immoral to send in women.
As stated previously, Israel does not have an option, nor do the Kurds, and other countries without morals simply don't care.

---

You're confused. You're thinking about the real world. That no longer matters.

Decisions are made by a professional screeching minority (our betters) subsidized by our paychecks who make decisions based on platitudes and feels. These decisions are then forced on everyone, because, we still go to work on Monday and follow their rules.

Once it was decided that men and women are perfectly equal (new morality). Any argument, fact, or evidence demonstrating otherwise becomes immoral. The only moral thing to do is ensure equal outcome. And thus, young girls getting killed on the battlefield is a moral imperative.

If women don't like this, it is up to them to fight it. Men aren't allowed to hold a contrary opinion (see above).

I hope that we all keep in mind that registering for a draft is not the same as a draft. If a draft is called, rules for deferments will be made and how individual draftees are handled will be determined by a draft board.

As for women fighting in combat, that horse was never in the barn. While it may not have always been legally sanctioned, women have fought in every war the United States has been involved in and that is fairly easily proven with just a little research.

I believe the number of women actively seeking infantry assignments will be a small percentage of overall recruiting.

I support the volunteer military and believe that we currently field the most capable combat force the world has ever seen. This is in spite of the most disrespectful political leadership the military has had to deal with in decades.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davsel

Or, instead of making it worse, we use the common sense of a moral, civilized society and send only our men to war. Feminists be damned.

---

Exactly how I feel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davsel

Simple Biology - Testosterone vs. Estrogen.
Throughout the animal kingdom, males and females are designed differently in order to best fulfill their roles.
This was once plainly obvious to all.

---

If EVER there was a time to point out the quote in my signature, this is it...

Modern liberalism is based on the idea that reality is obligated to conform to one's beliefs because; "I have the right to believe whatever I want".

Sending your women off to war in my opinion is a problem, but not as big of a problem as the lowering and adjusting of standards that is about to come. Unless you've been around women in the military, its really hard to describe how much of a problem they actually are. I believe that in warfare there should be no compromises, no politician micro managing, no political correctness. We fight wars to destroy our enemies plain and simple. I am lucky enough to be married to an Army Airborne combat vet and she hates the typical military women and all the problem that they cause as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davsel

Simple Biology - Testosterone vs. Estrogen.
Throughout the animal kingdom, males and females are designed differently in order to best fulfill their roles.
This was once plainly obvious to all.

When there are enough men to do the fighting, it is immoral to send in women.
As stated previously, Israel does not have an option, nor do the Kurds, and other countries without morals simply don't care.

---

I'll just say that I disagree with everything you just wrote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zundfolge

Modern liberalism is based on the idea that reality is obligated to conform to one's beliefs because; "I have the right to believe whatever I want".

---

I've always loved your sig. [Beer]

My youngest son is in the infantry, currently at jump school in Ft. Benning, GA and he said if they allow women in combat it will cost a lot of good soldiers lives.
He also said he would get out if they let women in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tmjohnson

My youngest son is in the infantry, currently at jump school in Ft. Benning, GA and he said if they allow women in combat it will cost a lot of good soldiers lives.
He also said he would get out if they let women in.

---

I have bad news for him. Women have been doing combat missions for a long time.

In fact, the plane he jumps out of tomorrow might be flown by a woman...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hoser

I have bad news for him. Women have been doing combat missions for a long time.

In fact, the plane he jumps out of tomorrow might be flown by a woman...

---

He's infantry, gotta cut them some slack. Where we going SIR? Down that hill soldier. SIR, YES SIR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BushMasterBoy

And then there is this...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...civilians.html

---

So, instead of continuing to hire military contractors to fill those high paying positions, we put a uniform on them and give them military benefits? Makes zero sense.

If a situation got dire enough to merit a draft, there'd be plenty of military roles to fill that weren't on the front lines.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/poli...e84983262.html

Quote:

---

Marine Corps leaders initially balked at allowing women into certain infantry, reconnaissance and combat engineer jobs, pointing to studies that showed mixed gender units did not perform as well as male-only units. But Defense Secretary Ash Carter ordered all combat jobs open to women.

The Marines developed a detailed progression of physical standards that recruits must meet to get into the combat jobs. And officials insist that standards will not be lowered to allow more women to pass.

Nearly 86 percent of the women failed the tests, compared with less than 3 percent of the men.

---

Men and women are the same [ROFL2]

Men and other men aren't the same.

See: Gersh Kunzman

Objective standards (if they exist or can be established) should determine which jobs should be available to people who are able to meet those standards.

If accurate shooting was the only criteria for infantry service, there are plenty of women that would outpace plenty of men. Clearly there are other areas, both physically and mentally that go into making a warrior.

Of those who have served, how much say did you have on who served in your unit with you? Leadership is about building a team with what you are given to work with and then accomplishing a mission with that team.

Just my $.02

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cstone

Men and other men aren't the same.

See: Gersh Kunzman

Objective standards (if they exist or can be established) should determine which jobs should be available to people who are able to meet those standards.

If accurate shooting was the only criteria for infantry service, there are plenty of women that would outpace plenty of men. Clearly there are other areas, both physically and mentally that go into making a warrior.

Of those who have served, how much say did you have on who served in your unit with you? Leadership is about building a team with what you are given to work with and then accomplishing a mission with that team.

Just my $.02

---

Some, but when I served, gays were not allowed - meaning the military was not as much of a political social experiment as it is today.
Also, those who could not hack it were easily removed. I'm not sure today's climate allows the same.

One of the finest leaders I have served under is a woman and she us also one of the best pilots I have flown with. She retired a couple years ago. Uncle Sam screwed up when he let her leave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davsel

Some, but when I served, gays were not allowed.

---

Take off your blinders, if you think you didn't serve with any gays.

You're always promoting looking at history. Do some research. Gays have been in our society for a long time. They are particularly adept at blending in, when necessary. We often never find out until well after the fact.


Sent via Mobile

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crays

Take off your blinders, if you think you didn't serve with any gays.

You're always promoting looking at history. Do some research. Gays have been in our society for a long time. They are particularly adept at blending in, when necessary. We often never find out until well after the fact.

---

http://static1.squarespace.com/stati.../?format=1000w

Typical davsel response. No words.

Relying on links, emojis, memes , etc.

Sent via Mobile

I assumed a picture of Captain Obvious would suffice.

If not, here are some words.
I've never said I did not serve with gays.
I've never said gays have not been in our society for a long time.

I'm not sure what your point was, considering you are making statements about ideas I have never promoted.

[Flower]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davsel

Some, but when I served, gays were not allowed -.

---

Just thought this statement was a bit naive. Kind of came across to me as "not allowed-didn't exist" in the context put forth.

Captain Obvious? Not really. Go back and re-read your post. You might see how it could be mis-construed.

Sent via Mobile

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crays

Just thought this statement was a bit naive. Kind of came across to me as "not allowed-didn't exist" in the context put forth.

Captain Obvious? Not really. Go back and re-read your post. You might see how it could be mis-construed.

Sent via Mobile

---

Perhaps if you read past the "-" in my original post, you would have better understood the "meaning" I was attempting to convey.
I'll try to spell it out more obviously in the future.


ETA obligatory emoji: [handbags]

Uh,no. You were still putting it in the context of the military not accepting it, with the implication that it was not an issue.(i.e.: it didn't exist, but it does now due to lax leadership).

Great. Glad your head is not in the sand.

Sent via Mobile

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crays

Uh,no. You were still putting it in the context of the military not accepting it, with the implication that it was not an issue.(i.e.: it didn't exist, but it does now due to lax leadership).

Great. Glad your head is not in the sand.

Sent via Mobile

---

My point being that it was not accepted in the military at the time. Therefore, if gays were "outed," they were removed from service. We were not forced into accepting them into our Units. They were considered incompatible with military service. If they kept a low enough profile, they remained.

Today, our military is forced into accepting damn near everyone, regardless of their compatibility with military service, and any military member who questions this is the one being removed.

It's a bunch of PC, social diversity, feminist nonsense that gets people killed.

Well stated. I fully understand and agree with your statement.

Sent via Mobile

Armies are as political as any other group endeavor.

My point is that as an individual member in a unit, you had no say about who else served in your unit. Your commanders and ultimately our political leaders establish the rules for who may and who may not serve in the military.

I am reminded of all the debate and struggle over the issue of how, and under what circumstances slaves could be enlisted into the state militias and the national army during the Revolutionary War. Some states raised units of freed blacks, while other states paid owners to allow their slaves to serve. Just the system of quotas used to promote general officers in the colonies was totally based on politics and had nothing to do with the merit of the individual. Ask Benedict Arnold how he felt about the politics of his day.

But, devil's advocate, were gays that were better soldiers booted while crappy straight soldiers coasted through?

Not trying to continue a debate, just a thought.

Sent via Mobile

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cstone

Men and other men aren't the same.

See: Gersh Kunzman

Objective standards (if they exist or can be established) should determine which jobs should be available to people who are able to meet those standards.

If accurate shooting was the only criteria for infantry service, there are plenty of women that would outpace plenty of men. Clearly there are other areas, both physically and mentally that go into making a warrior.

Of those who have served, how much say did you have on who served in your unit with you? Leadership is about building a team with what you are given to work with and then accomplishing a mission with that team.

Just my $.02

---

We had 5 or 6 women at any given time. One of those women was really good and was quite an asset. The other 4-5 were either injured or pregnant or a combination of both at any given time. My engineer platoon had about 3-4 people injured or sick on any given day and consistently 75% of that group was the few women that we did have. I'm all for women being included in these units if the numbers worked out, but to be honest they don't and they haven't in the past. My wife is an excellent example. Max PT tests, excellent at her job, great leader, expert shooter, combat valor awards and way better at every aspect of the military than I was and yet couldn't ruck march at all. It was just physically impossible for her to carry that much weight for a prolonged amount of time.

US Marines To Accept Chubbier Women

Quote:

---

In an effort to maintain the new status quo of cutting standards everywhere in the name of equality and "progress", the Marine Corps announced major changes over the Fourth of July holiday weekend regarding how much it will allow service members to weigh, and the biggest shift comes for women: going forward "larger" ladies will be allowed to defend the country while also standards used within the physical fitness test will also be relaxed.

---

I pray that standards aren't lowered for combat positions to be filled by women that couldn't otherwise do the job.

Then again, there are a ton of support positions that women could (and do) easily fill: for every soldier in the field, how much support does he need? Who packs supplies on pallets, fills the shipping orders, loads the planes, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davsel

US Marines To Accept Chubbier Women

---

A buddy sent me this yesterday. I had to take a moment to think about it. This is what got me thinking...

Quote:

---

A 5-foot-9 woman was allowed to be up to 169 pounds, but can now be 176

---

That is "overweight" by civilian BMI standards. How long would that hypothetical recruit be in a receiving platoon/on diet? That's not just bad for the Marines, it's bad for that recruit.

And are we really hurting that bad for recruits that can meet standards? How many have been cut in last seven years that could meet standards, some having combat experience. SNCOs have been hit hard by reductions.

I think it's going past political correctness at this point. Someone wants the USMC to fail.