January 05, 2013
— Open Blogger I see no particular problem with women in support roles in the military. Men are probably no better at driving trucks and cooking meals and pushing paper and all of the work that goes on behind the scenes in any military organization. But...allowing women in combat roles is insane. Luckily, it seems as if women in the military seem to agree with that.
Posted by: Open Blogger at
08:38 AM
| Comments (165)
Post contains 77 words, total size 1 kb.
Lets send the Democrat women in the House to A-stan to find out. DWS trying to wear a helmet, ha!
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 05, 2013 08:39 AM (HXcdb)
Posted by: Ian S. at January 05, 2013 08:47 AM (OevbG)
Posted by: Barbara Walters at January 05, 2013 08:48 AM (nk5Tr)
Posted by: JDTAY at January 05, 2013 08:48 AM (a0nis)
Posted by: Spoily McSpoilerson at January 05, 2013 08:48 AM (EoaNf)
Posted by: toby928© polluting your thread with football at January 05, 2013 08:50 AM (QupBk)
It's a very physical job.
Posted by: GnuBreed at January 05, 2013 08:50 AM (cHZB7)
Posted by: Wymyn at January 05, 2013 08:51 AM (G9qZk)
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at January 05, 2013 08:51 AM (ehEyA)
Posted by: Rob in Katy at January 05, 2013 08:52 AM (PiTBB)
Posted by: SurferDoc at January 05, 2013 08:52 AM (6H6FZ)
Posted by: Darth Vader at January 05, 2013 08:52 AM (a0nis)
Posted by: Frumious Bandersnatch at January 05, 2013 08:54 AM (T0f6e)
All positions in the service are now front line positions.
Posted by: Vic at January 05, 2013 08:56 AM (53z96)
There is a problem with the existing inventory being sized for men: women are sometimes just too small to reach all the controls. But I don't think it's "insane" to consider using them where they can do the work.
Posted by: PersonFromPorlock at January 05, 2013 08:56 AM (2VCZA)
Posted by: 11B40 at January 05, 2013 08:57 AM (BBCqB)
The will of the American public to fight a sustained war is already near zero. Let the bad guys capture a few women soldiers and abuse them on TV and we might as well resign from the World's Policeman gig.
We wouldn't be fighting a sustained war if we had the will to win by crushing our enemies, like we used to. The BS excuses of "disproportional warfare" is doing what it's designed to do by needlessly prolonging conflicts when that's not necessary.
Having a PC military trying to fight a PC "war" is not the way to win a decisive victory. Patton weeps.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit. at January 05, 2013 08:58 AM (yiIja)
At 45 I can't enlist on the front lines as a guy. Why? Because I am not a strong as 20 year old guy (although I lift weights), don't have the endurance (although I jog) and am more prone to injury (although I am in good shape). But in every single one of these categories I would do better than 99.99% of all women, even those half my age.
So if you need fighting people you would go for "old" guys like me before you put women on the front line. But this whole concept is not about putting a force together for killing our enemy, but about political correctness, nothing more.
Posted by: whatever at January 05, 2013 08:59 AM (++uBO)
Is this an anger thing? Wanting to punish the women who are in the military?
My perpetually-suspicious mind tells me that it's another leftist feint designed to sow uncertainty and discord amongst both the armed forces and the civilian populace.
And Cicero is right, I think: the first time we see video aired of a female soldier brutalized in Afghanistan, the public is going to demand either (A. withdrawal immediately, or (B. howl for an absolute bloodbath in retribution.
Posted by: Kinley Ardal at January 05, 2013 09:00 AM (bggxH)
True, but I didn't want to clutter the post with that sort of stuff. I think that we all know what combat v.s. non-combat is.
Driving a supply truck to a FOB in Shitcanistan is combat, no matter how the REMFs define it.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 05, 2013 09:00 AM (GsoHv)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 05, 2013 09:01 AM (HXcdb)
Posted by: That Truman Fellow at January 05, 2013 09:01 AM (I2LwF)
NOT.
Posted by: Helen Mucus at January 05, 2013 09:02 AM (P1xyf)
Posted by: That Truman Fellow at January 05, 2013 09:02 AM (I2LwF)
Posted by: Kinley Ardal at January 05, 2013 09:03 AM (bggxH)
Even the Nazis, when the jig was clearly up, didn't put women in combat. It's insanity.
Posted by: USS Diversity at January 05, 2013 09:03 AM (MPjT8)
We have no strategy there now, no goal, and no mission other than to cover Obama's political ass and be a target.
And I do blame Bush for that. He should have known better than to leave GI's in harm's way when we have a Demonrat President.
Posted by: Vic at January 05, 2013 09:03 AM (53z96)
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at January 05, 2013 09:03 AM (ehEyA)
Posted by: Ace's liver at January 05, 2013 09:04 AM (1+XRG)
Posted by: Bosk at January 05, 2013 09:05 AM (QkFee)
Ground troops should only be used for looting and pillaging in the aftermath.
Posted by: Fritz at January 05, 2013 09:05 AM (w3+gB)
Posted by: Ed Anger at January 05, 2013 09:06 AM (tOkJB)
Posted by: That Truman Fellow at January 05, 2013 09:07 AM (I2LwF)
Posted by: VIA, on the tiny keyboard at January 05, 2013 09:07 AM (dS6kn)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 05, 2013 09:09 AM (uhAkr)
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at January 05, 2013 01:03 PM (ehEyA)
If the female front line consists of people like my daughter and AtC....about a nanosecond.
Posted by: Tami at January 05, 2013 09:09 AM (X6akg)
Posted by: That Truman Fellow at January 05, 2013 09:10 AM (I2LwF)
Posted by: Ace's liver at January 05, 2013 09:10 AM (1+XRG)
Posted by: That Truman Fellow at January 05, 2013 09:11 AM (I2LwF)
And as for women in combat, the commies, in WW II, used them as snipers and fighter pilots, but after the war, stopped that practice.
So, yeah, if you are fighting for your very existence, it makes sense. Otherwise, not so much.
Posted by: Josef K. at January 05, 2013 09:12 AM (tOkJB)
It's almost like there are biological differences between the sexes.
Go figure.
Posted by: GnuBreed at January 05, 2013 09:13 AM (cHZB7)
How long will a female-heavy front line hold when the enemy deploys spiders?
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at January 05, 2013 01:03 PM (ehEyA)
======
Ha Ha or mice.
Posted by: USS Diversity at January 05, 2013 09:14 AM (MPjT8)
Who named that poor girl?!
Posted by: Tami at January 05, 2013 09:15 AM (X6akg)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 05, 2013 09:15 AM (HXcdb)
Posted by: Eaton Cox at January 05, 2013 09:15 AM (q177U)
Even the Nazis, when the jig was clearly up, didn't put women in combat. It's insanity.
Posted by: USS Diversity at January 05, 2013 01:03 PM (MPjT
I am not sure about that. Get a hundred menopausal women together and they could kill anything. Especially a hard on.
Posted by: Billy Bob, Pseudo Intellectual at January 05, 2013 09:16 AM (wR+pz)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 05, 2013 09:16 AM (XkWWK)
Posted by: Spoily McSpoilerson at January 05, 2013 09:16 AM (EoaNf)
Posted by: awkward davies at January 05, 2013 09:16 AM (USjX1)
"Much has happened for women since then in American society and the military."
Until these "happenings" involve major changes to physiology, there's still going to be the same limitations on women serving in the infantry that have existed for the last few thousand years of recorded history.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 05, 2013 09:17 AM (IgvLC)
Posted by: phoenixgirl, Merry 12th day of Christmas at January 05, 2013 09:18 AM (GVxQo)
Though there is one time the US Navy launched an all female flight crew in an F-14 for combat. It was nine hours long that mission. One of the crew, her call sign was Nooner, and she eschewed fitting a Depends before taking off. So when she finally trapped aboard, well it was sight to see as she ran for the head.
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 05, 2013 09:19 AM (HXcdb)
Posted by: USS Diversity at January 05, 2013 09:20 AM (MPjT8)
Then again, Israel is a tiny nation and needs all the troops it can muster.
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 05, 2013 01:16 PM (XkWWK)
It is my understanding that Israel tried this. The problem with it turned out to be that male soldiers would take unnecessary risks both to protect the female soldiers and to "show boat" for them. It was militaristically unworkable.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 05, 2013 09:21 AM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Spoily McSpoilerson at January 05, 2013 09:22 AM (EoaNf)
>>How long will a female-heavy front line hold when the enemy deploys spiders?
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at January 05, 2013 01:03 PM (ehEyA)
======
>>Ha Ha or mice.
Every time my husband is deployed, I end up dealing with live bugs in the house and dead critters in the yard.
Clearly, I'm ready for combat.
Posted by: Mama AJ at January 05, 2013 09:22 AM (SUKHu)
Of course you never hear about all the male/female bullshit that mixed gender units have to deal with on a daily. fucking. basis. that has nothing to do with physical performance. Nobody or no study EVER reports that crap.
Having been in a few of these in my time, I shudder to think of the complications caused by close quarters living, high optempo, and mortal danger to something already complicated by way too much bullshit.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 05, 2013 09:23 AM (IgvLC)
Posted by: Al at January 05, 2013 09:23 AM (V70Uh)
Posted by: Ted Kennedy...from beyond the grave at January 05, 2013 09:23 AM (x9s9/)
Posted by: mare at January 05, 2013 09:24 AM (A98Xu)
Posted by: pep at January 05, 2013 09:24 AM (6TB1Z)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 05, 2013 09:24 AM (HXcdb)
I therefore deem it necessary to immediately implement, by Executive Order, the elimination of all such blatant discrimination against women in combat positions within the US military. The loss of a few more lives and decreased combat effectiveness of deployed US Forces is a small price to pay to defeat the Republicans in their ongoing War On Women.
Posted by: Barry "Executive Order" Ochoomba at January 05, 2013 09:24 AM (Cnqmv)
Posted by: whatever at January 05, 2013 12:59 PM (++uBO)
I will point out that during the Russian revolution, the White forces created women brigades. They did not acquit themselves well. They did however provide entertainment for the victorious Red troops after the battle.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 05, 2013 09:25 AM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Ted Kennedy...from beyond the grave at January 05, 2013 09:25 AM (x9s9/)
Posted by: Spoily McSpoilerson at January 05, 2013 01:22 PM (EoaNf)
=======
I get it. It was damned disgraceful then, and that wasn't even hazardous duty. I can't imagine what goes on now.
Posted by: USS Diversity at January 05, 2013 09:26 AM (MPjT8)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 05, 2013 09:26 AM (XkWWK)
Posted by: mare at January 05, 2013 09:27 AM (A98Xu)
Posted by: Hrothgar - LIB or SMOD (for the Children) at January 05, 2013 09:27 AM (Cnqmv)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 05, 2013 09:28 AM (HXcdb)
Posted by: mare at January 05, 2013 09:28 AM (A98Xu)
Posted by: Ted Kennedy...from beyond the grave at January 05, 2013 09:28 AM (x9s9/)
Posted by: Anna Puma at January 05, 2013 01:01 PM (HXcdb)
Do you mean pro or con? I assume Pro, if you believe the propaganda spewed, Con if you know what the truth turned out to be.
While we're on the topic, does anyone remember Kara Hultgreen? Yeah, that was a good idea.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 05, 2013 09:29 AM (bb5+k)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 05, 2013 09:29 AM (XkWWK)
I, for one, welcome the addtion of the Mobile Army Strip Clubs unit augmented with a detachment from the 69th Brigade Belly Dancing specialists.
It's time to earn your tassels, girls! Man those poles. Go for broke!
Posted by: Count de Monet at January 05, 2013 09:29 AM (BAS5M)
And I do blame Bush for that. He should have known better than to leave GI's in harm's way when we have a Demonrat President.
Posted by: Vic at January 05, 2013 01:03 PM (53z96)
I blame George Bush for a lot of things. He set the standard of reckless spending, and knowing the Democrats, that's all it took to justify them doing four times as much of it.
Anyone who has been paying attention for the last 30 years ought to have known that Democrats will use ANY excuse to spend, and if Republicans do the same thing, you have lost the argument.
George Bush very badly damaged the Republican brand, as did his Father.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 05, 2013 09:32 AM (bb5+k)
I agree that women can fulfill support positions, but the rest is PC crap.
Posted by: nraendowment at January 05, 2013 09:33 AM (Msv+6)
I don't know the exact physiology of it, but it made sense. Male and female bodies are different.
Posted by: mare at January 05, 2013 01:24 PM (A98Xu)
Male bodies are evolved to fight. Females pick the winners to have children with.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 05, 2013 09:35 AM (bb5+k)
She and her RIO were flying an F-14A. Lining up for approach. The LSO waved her off. As she started to bank left the left TF-30 piece of ever living fraking cr*ptastic engine decided to flame out. So there was Kara in a Turkey trying to do a go around and pushing the throttles forward when the engine on the banking side dies on her. Even with ADC and auto-sweep, losing half your thrust in an almost 70,000lb plane low and slow. So the plane started to roll into the dead engine when someone grabbed the yellow/black handles. So RIO and then pilot sequence ejected. RIO's GRU-7 launched within the safe envelope but by the time the sequencer got to Hultgreen she was outside the safe ejection envelope. That is how she died.
I am not being pro and con on Lynch. I was just pointing out it had already happened.
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 05, 2013 09:35 AM (HXcdb)
Posted by: Soona at January 05, 2013 09:37 AM (e9eRd)
Posted by: USS Diversity at January 05, 2013 09:39 AM (MPjT8)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 05, 2013 09:41 AM (HXcdb)
Posted by: Anna Puma at January 05, 2013 01:35 PM (HXcdb)
That sounds like the official re-write. My understanding from reading the accounts at the time were that she caused the flame out by shadowing her engine's intake with the fuselage. i.e. she wasn't steering correctly at low speed.
I also understand that they forced her through flight school and she really hadn't qualified but because Clinton was pushing it, they let her through by looking the other way on her mistakes.
In the Navy's efforts to avert blame from her, they put male pilots through a simulator in which they intentionally shut off their engine on a carrier landing approach. Most of them couldn't recover, but it completely ignores the point. SHE flamed out her own engine through bad flying. She was passed to fly even though she either wasn't ready, or wasn't able to do the job.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at January 05, 2013 09:44 AM (bb5+k)
And these bitches can make a sammich like nobody's business.
Posted by: Fritz at January 05, 2013 09:49 AM (w3+gB)
Posted by: DAve at January 05, 2013 09:49 AM (XDC0v)
Posted by: Danny at January 05, 2013 09:50 AM (kra8Q)
The TF-30 was a piece of junk that would explode, sending blade fragments slicing through fuel cells and wrecking the working engine. It had so many limits of how to fly it the pilots never flew the F-14A, they were flying the engines to ensure the smoothest airflow always got to it. Sec. of the Navy Lehman in Congressional testimony even called the engine junk.
What you are referring to is not shadowing, but blanking the engine. The TF-30 during the wave off got a ripple of disturbed air which caused a flame out is what you are saying. The F-14Bs and Ds with the GE F-110 have never suffered this airflow disruption problem.
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 05, 2013 09:53 AM (HXcdb)
Those of you who noted the Nazis dint use female soldiers in their hour of need clearly need a few history lessons on the Red Army.
======
One has to do with the other, how?
Posted by: USS Diversity at January 05, 2013 09:53 AM (MPjT8)
Posted by: RWC at January 05, 2013 09:57 AM (sqp6o)
Posted by: SurferDoc at January 05, 2013 09:57 AM (6H6FZ)
Posted by: mare at January 05, 2013 09:59 AM (A98Xu)
Posted by: Rob in Katy at January 05, 2013 10:00 AM (PiTBB)
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at January 05, 2013 10:02 AM (MBqvE)
Posted by: SFGoth at January 05, 2013 10:04 AM (oCZ5c)
Posted by: Here we go again at January 05, 2013 10:07 AM (vA9kU)
Posted by: SFGoth at January 05, 2013 10:07 AM (oCZ5c)
I think wars should only be fought to completely break the enemy, leaving compassion to the clean up crew.
But in tightly budgeted combat arms school planning, you'd think you would want go with the gender that has proven beyond all doubt that it has the highest percentage of natural born killers.
A distinction that should only be valued in this one necessary circumstance.
Posted by: ontherocks at January 05, 2013 10:08 AM (aZ6ew)
102.... PC has no place the armed forces.
This!
It should all be based on proficiency.
Pure proficiency, too...not the watered-down PC versions.
And I agree with IllTemperedCur about having women register for the draft at 18.
If the feminazis were really serious about equality, they'd be screaming for that.
Posted by: wheatie at January 05, 2013 10:10 AM (dC04t)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 05, 2013 10:11 AM (HXcdb)
Posted by: BignJames at January 05, 2013 10:19 AM (HtUkt)
I would hesitate to use Michael Yon as a source for anything. He has an agenda a mile wide and a mile deep.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 05, 2013 10:20 AM (GsoHv)
Not spec ops. Just working as an officer with the Marine infantry in the field, doing engineering under remote, austere combat conditions.
The Marine in question was a former star collegiate athlete and weightlifter, who came close to maxing out the female version of the Marine PFT. But just a relatively short stint being required to do what is required of male Marine infantrymen in the field was enough to physically break her.
She said that if that situation had continued, it would have sufficed to ruin her USMC career and force her into medical retirement. She very bravely defied the institutional consensus to speak out against it.
http://tinyurl.com/av8fuwl
I am happy to have women serve in any capacity whatsoever for which they are qualified, including physically qualified, and for which they can pass the necessary training and tests without a deliberate lowering of the bar.
Unfortunately, what we have seen in the last quarter-century has been a triumph of leftist political correctness over objective assessment. The diversity commissars are forcing women into jobs those women aren't able to do well enough at for brute biological reasons. It'll end with failures in readiness, disastrous combat defeats, and both women and men dying and being permanently crippled for no good reason.
Posted by: torquewrench at January 05, 2013 10:22 AM (gqT4g)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 05, 2013 10:27 AM (HXcdb)
Does this mean the military is going to lose the lower standards women have for PT tests? If we are all equal, why are there two different standards we are measured by?
Posted by: Invictus at January 05, 2013 10:28 AM (OQpzc)
PLEASE report immediately for your PC adjustment session. Your statement is a scream in teh night for enlightenment.
Posted by: Your Government Betters at January 05, 2013 10:31 AM (/jHWN)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 05, 2013 10:32 AM (HXcdb)
Gun Free Zones are supposed to protect our children, and some politicians wish to strip us of our right to keep and bear arms. Those same politicians and their families are currently under the protection of armed Secret Service agents. If Gun Free Zones are sufficient protection for our children, then Gun Free Zones should be good enough for politicians.
Posted by: Pres**ent Barack “Unexpectedly” Obama at January 05, 2013 10:35 AM (e8kgV)
Posted by: eman at January 05, 2013 10:51 AM (EWsrI)
Posted by: Invictus at January 05, 2013 10:53 AM (OQpzc)
Posted by: JHW at January 05, 2013 10:55 AM (B38OD)
Posted by: Elizabeth Warren's bikini line holding back the gray curlies at January 05, 2013 11:05 AM (jfSqj)
Posted by: General Zod at January 05, 2013 11:10 AM (2+bRt)
Posted by: Danny at January 05, 2013 11:17 AM (kra8Q)
Posted by: Danny at January 05, 2013 11:23 AM (kra8Q)
Posted by: Danny at January 05, 2013 11:27 AM (kra8Q)
Posted by: Danny at January 05, 2013 03:17 PM (kra8Q)
I tend to disbelieve Soviet propaganda. YMMV.
Posted by: Invictus at January 05, 2013 11:27 AM (OQpzc)
Posted by: Cowboy at January 05, 2013 11:35 AM (vNrFq)
Posted by: Danny at January 05, 2013 11:38 AM (kra8Q)
Posted by: Danny at January 05, 2013 11:43 AM (kra8Q)
Posted by: General Zod at January 05, 2013 11:46 AM (2+bRt)
Posted by: elizabethe at January 05, 2013 11:53 AM (jwHRs)
Posted by: elizabethe at January 05, 2013 03:53 PM (jwHRs)
That did suck. I never saw Matt being the the avatar of the Creator coming. Color me shocked.
Posted by: Invictus at January 05, 2013 11:55 AM (OQpzc)
Posted by: elizabethe at January 05, 2013 03:53 PM (jwHRs)
you need to use the term qualifier "complete asshole" here, because everyone here is an asshole to some degree, but only a select few are complete ones!
Posted by: Hrothgar - LIB or SMOD (for the Children) at January 05, 2013 12:19 PM (Cnqmv)
Posted by: Elizabethe at January 05, 2013 12:21 PM (jwHRs)
Posted by: Danny at January 05, 2013 12:28 PM (kra8Q)
Posted by: Danny at January 05, 2013 12:36 PM (kra8Q)
Stopped reading the Wheel of Time oh about book six. Glacial I tell you was how that series moved.
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at January 05, 2013 12:38 PM (HXcdb)
Posted by: Danny at January 05, 2013 04:36 PM (kra8Q)
Nuke them from orbit?
Posted by: Invictus at January 05, 2013 12:45 PM (OQpzc)
the Soviets used women in their hour of need, and I reckon that 300+ kills by a women sniper
Not taking anything away from her, but the Soviets used to exaggerate the shit out of everything they did, so I'd take that number with a grain of salt.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at January 05, 2013 12:48 PM (4u2LN)
we still have a corrupt government, a nation full of illegal opium production, and a nation so mired in internecine hatreds that stability is an illusion
Sounds kinda like here, except for the opium part.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at January 05, 2013 12:49 PM (4u2LN)
Posted by: Danny at January 05, 2013 12:53 PM (kra8Q)
Posted by: General Zod at January 05, 2013 12:53 PM (2+bRt)
Posted by: Danny at January 05, 2013 12:56 PM (kra8Q)
Posted by: JDP at January 05, 2013 01:00 PM (8HhF2)
Posted by: General Zod at January 05, 2013 01:06 PM (2+bRt)
Posted by: General Zod at January 05, 2013 01:07 PM (2+bRt)
Posted by: ALL_IS_LOST at January 05, 2013 01:23 PM (T/L2Z)
Posted by: JHW at January 05, 2013 01:26 PM (B38OD)
Posted by: General Zod at January 05, 2013 01:35 PM (2+bRt)
Posted by: Danny at January 05, 2013 01:42 PM (kra8Q)
Posted by: Cackfinger at January 05, 2013 02:17 PM (CCHli)
http://tinyurl.com/b2y35gd
Posted by: JHW at January 05, 2013 02:21 PM (B38OD)
139
the Soviets used women in their hour of need, and I reckon that 300+ kills by a women sniper
Not taking anything away from her, but the Soviets used to exaggerate the shit out of everything they did, so I'd take that number with a grain of salt. Posted by: Jay Guevara
Yeah - try to find anything online about that Russian serial killer that took out over 100 victims during the peak power of the Soviet police state - it'd be a handy article to show the gun grabbers - poof, down the memory hole.
Posted by: Obamao at January 05, 2013 02:45 PM (JtyGg)
http://tinyurl.com/Marine-Corps-Gazette
Posted by: Lazarus at January 05, 2013 04:01 PM (6FGVd)
Posted by: Kenneth at January 05, 2013 04:04 PM (GYW4K)
Posted by: toby928© polluting your thread with football at January 05, 2013 05:06 PM (QupBk)
Posted by: Mike K at January 05, 2013 05:31 PM (yQ85F)
My AFSC was whatever the USAF said it was.
I got what I wanted, but if they would've needed me as an SF troop, then thats what it would've been.
Why dont women have to register for the draft if they are critical to the functioning of the Armed Forces?
And once they are there, how come there are different standards for the females? The F-4 tire, M-240 machine gun, and whatever the hell the Navy does doesn't magically change based on who is changing, humping, or working on it. So how on earth do different physical standards make sense?
In my 22 years as a crew chief, mx officer, and pilot, I continuously saw females put on restricted duties for pregnancy, sickness, etc. An instructor pilot that trained me flew for about 1 year of the 5 years that I spent at McGuire AFB.
One of my masters courses was analyzing the Kara Hultgreen mishap.
The "official" safety report was so egregious that "someone" took the extraordinary step of releasing the findings on the net. She screwed up from A-Z and was killed because of her arrogance, and the fact that she was enabled for her entire Navy career. She should have never been in the jet.
In pilot training, I saw it in spades. We had two females in my class, one over g'd the jet IN THE PATTERN, at 60 degrees of bank.
She was not washed out.
Of course, we had a female wing commander.
Here's the deal.
Everyone registers with selective service, or no benefits, jail, etc. (like with guys)
One standard for each service.
No exemptions.
equality.
Posted by: MikeB at January 05, 2013 07:22 PM (R6G9k)
Posted by: EROWMER at January 05, 2013 07:55 PM (kxlCQ)
I served with a MP company in Desert Shield/ Storm attached to an armor division, so we had a few females in our company. Most of them are liabilities and become dead weight for the guys to carry. Under fire, they come up short. Having to hear the after-action -report about Lt. Suzzy Softbottom throwing her weapon to the ground and running when shots were fired her squads way isn't pleasant knowing that little morsal never made it's way outside of battalion. Can't have women getting bad OER/ EERs. Or the female gunner curled up in the fetal position when the convoy is under fire. The sudden pregancies spring up before deployemnt-- meaning platoons go short down range. As field conditions tend to get spartan, women seem to have a harder time dealing with it and, again, the men have to pick up the slack.
Keep them in admin, medical or supply, but out of combat arms.
Posted by: Buckeye Abroad at January 06, 2013 01:52 AM (f+TdG)
However - under most conditions, particularly for primarily-volunteer military forces, it should be regarded as an unnecessary idea.
The most concise and appropriate view, I think, is:
"I am happy to have women serve in any capacity whatsoever for which they are qualified, including physically qualified, and for which they can pass the necessary training and tests without a deliberate lowering of the bar.
Unfortunately, what we have seen in the last quarter-century has been a triumph of leftist political correctness over objective assessment."
The whole pregnancy/sex thing is purely a side-issue, and can be managed if necessary, even given the current state of the UCMJ.
If they can clearly cut it - and clearly want it - let 'em do it. Otherwise, apply the standards, and move on...full stop, as the Brits say.
Posted by: J.S.Bridges at January 06, 2013 11:35 AM (kxPuQ)
Posted by: R. Aurum Tar at January 06, 2013 12:23 PM (S/akZ)
Women have been in war since time immemorial. Anyone who requires proof need only do a little research to find copious historical facts about female warriors, both individual and organized.
Just a few examples:
Deborah, one of the Judges of Israel. Source: The Bible (Book of Judges)
In 529 BC, Tomyris, Queen of the Massagetae in southwest Asia, led her armies in defeating the invasion of Cyrus the Great of Persia.
In 61 AD Queen Boudicca of the Iceni of Norfolk led a major rebellion against the Romans during which she sacked and burned modern day London and St. Albans.
Revolutionary War:
Margaret Cochran Corbin, born in Pennsylvania in 1751, was assisting her husband John with his cannon when he was killed on Nov. 16, 1776 during a British and Hessian attack on Fort Washington, New York. She took over the cannon and continued to fire at the enemy until she was seriously wounded and lost the use of her arm. In 1779 she was awarded a disabled soldier's pension by the Continental Congress and in 1780 became the only woman enrolled in the "Invalid Regiment" which was stationed at West Point. When the "Invalid Regiment" was disbanded in 1783 Corbin remained in the area drawing her supplies from the commissary and being cared for by the military. She is buried in the soldier's graveyard behind the Old Cadet Chapel at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point where a bronze plaque commemorates her as "the first American woman to take a soldier's part in the War for Liberty".
Mary Ludwig Hays McCauley served alongside her husband, John Hays, in the 1st Pennsylvania Artillery and later in the 7th Pennsylvania Regiment. On the battlefield she carried water, swabbed out cannon bores and loaded shot. When John was seriously wounded in June 1778 while fighting at Monmouth, New Jersey, Mary ignored her own wounds and operated his cannon until the battle ended. After the war she was awarded a veteranÂ’s pension of $40 per year by the State of Pennsylvania. She is believed by many historians to be the inspiration for the legendary "Molly Pitcher".
Deborah Samson (some sources use the spelling Sampson) served with the 4th Massachusetts Regiment disguised as Robert Shurheff (some sources use the spelling Shirtliffe or Shurtliff) from May 1782 until October 1783. She was wounded in a skirmish near Tarrytown, New York and according to some sources was later hit by a musket ball in another skirmish at East Chester. Once her gender was discovered she was given an honorable discharge on October 23, 1783. After the war Deborah married Benjamin Gannett and had three children (Earl, Pauline and Mary). On January 19, 1792, at the urging of Paul Revere who was convinced she should receive a veterans pension, the Massachusetts legislature granted Deborah 34 pounds sterling with interest from her date of discharge. She died on April 29, 1827 and is buried in Rock Ridge Cemetery in Sharon Massachusetts. In 1944 the liberty ship Deborah Sampson Gannett was christened in her honor. On May 23, 1983 she was named the Official Heroine of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and in 1985 was honored with a Commemorative Medal by the U.S. Capitol Society.
Civil War:
Kady (aka Kate) Brownell served as a markswoman with the 1st Rhode Island Infantry Volunteers during the Civil War. She fought openly as a woman in several battles alongside her husband Robert and guarded her unit's flag during the first battle of Bull Run. In August 1861 the 1st Rhode Island disbanded and the Brownells each received a regular army discharge. They reenlisted in the 5th Rhode Island Infantry the following October. Although Kady was ordered to remain at the rear during engagements some contemporary accounts place her on the battlefield at New Bern, North Carolina where Robert was wounded. The Brownell's were transferred to New York where Robert spent several months recuperating in the Soldier's Relief Hospital. They were both discharged in the winter of 1863. In 1884 Kady Brownell was granted a veteran's pension of $8 per month. A surviving photograph taken during her service with the 1st Rhode Island, shows her armed with a sword and wearing a knee length dress over pants.
WWI
In 1915 Madame Arno, an artist, organized a regiment of Parisian women to fight the Germans. Helene Dutreux was the first of a number of women the French government officially permitted to become military pilots during WW I. Emilienne Moreau fought in the front ranks in a number of actions including the Battle of Loos where she killed two snipers. She was awarded the Croix de Guerre, the Bristish Red Cross Medal and the St. John Ambulance Society Medal. In 1940 she once again fought for her country earning a second Croix de Guerre.
WWII
Elena Haas fought with the Czech Resistance. In 1944 she led a raid that destroyed a vital and heavily guarded bridge. Leading several other raids she destroyed Nazi supplies and ammunition as well as killing many of the enemy. She died in 1945 while leading a raid against an airfield.
About 1,000 women aviators were trained as fighter and military transport pilots, 30 of them were awarded the Gold Star of a Hero of the Soviet Union for their heroism in combat. Three aviation regiments, the 586th Women's Fighter Regiment, the 587th Women's Bomber Regiment and the 588th Women's Night Bomber Regiment utilized only women pilots, engineers and mechanics. Major Tamara Aleksandrovna commanded a Russian all-female air-borne regiment on more than 400 sorties and 125 combat engagements. She and the women she commanded shot down thirty-eight enemy aircraft during aerial combat. Polina Gelman was a bomber pilot who flew 18 combat missions and was decorated five times.
There's also plenty of examples from Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, and OIF.
First All-female Crew Flies Combat Mission
http://tinyurl.com/7swte
Lioness: The Story of American Female Warriors
http://tunyurl.com/deu5sg
Army Specialist Monica Brow
http://tinyurl.com/ckfxyq
Army Sergeant Leigh Ann Hester
http://tinyurl.com/dfv2rz
I come from a lineage of military family members who taught me that if you enjoy the fruits of America, you'd damned well better be willing to fight for it. I did. I earned the right to serve and fight in my nation's wars, an honor that I am proud of. That's what a Soldier is trained to do, regardless of gender. If you choose to dismiss the historical and present day accomplishments and sacrifices of thousands of military personnel because of their gender, that sounds like a personal problem.
I pulled two tours in Iraq. Females endured the same hardships, dangers and demands as our male counterparts. We lived and worked in austere conditions, lifted and carried heavy equipment and never hesitated to assist in the effort to help the enemy die for their country. SCUD launches, mortar attacks, bunker sweeps, minefields and bullets were shared by everyone, regardless of gender. As an S2 NCO, I jumped ahead of my unit in OIF via Black Hawk and Ground Assault convoy to set up forward intelligence operations. I dug hasty defensive positions and set up sectors of fire.
After all the selfless service and sacrifice of women in war throughout history, you'd think people would have paid attention, and maybe, a little gratitude.
Everyone has abilities and limitations, regardless of gender. The problem is that some people just canÂ’t accept women being in wartime life-threatening situations, which is laughable because women around the planet are subjected to danger every damned day of the week.
So, if you've never been there, or you're just too boneheaded to give women the fair shake we've earned, shut the fuck up. I'm sick of your bullshit.
Posted by: SFC MAC at January 11, 2013 03:48 PM (TLbgU)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2699 seconds, 293 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: Dan in michigan at January 05, 2013 08:39 AM (2yD4G)