Posted on 10/27/2017 6:55:03 AM PDT by C19fan
And, no, I've never served.
I was too busy getting my doctorate in molecular physics.
My views comport very closely with an earlier poster on the thread, who said, "Nothing is ever symmetrical: PFC A "falls in love" with Sgt B who is in turn "in love with" Cpl C. Several will have the hots for the same one - and who in their right mind is going to trust the person on their left or right flank if they are in competition for the same person?"
Oh, that was *you*.
The difference is, I don't think women should be anywhere *near* the front lines. Neither infantry, nor the Navy, nor the Air Force.
Also, you need to look out for the SJWs after saying that. There's a Nobel Prize scientist who lost his research position after remarking that young women in the lab can fall in love with their superiors.
You don't have a Nobel Prize, do you?
As a matter of fact, I do have a Nobel Prize! Though not for anything as glorious as molecular physics - in 1988 all UN Peacekeepers were awarded the Nobel and I was in the Sinai with UNTSO. I got a nifty certificate but no money.
I’m fine with women in the service: just not ground combat. Even the dingbat SJWs have to understand that that’s crazy. They have no idea what horrors that will open up.
Shame you didn’t try the service. It’s good for you except maybe if you get yourself killed.
For the same reasons as previously described. If you read my earlier comments about the first coed cruise of the USS Vulcan, it was called "the Love Boat" for a good reason.
All of the stuff I talked about goes double for gays in the service. Same corrosive effects, except that they have multiple partners and their assignations spread through separate units, commands, even services. No nightmare quite like having a queer Major or Gunnery Sergeant picking who gets the tough or easy assignments based on who's doing them favors.
We have a very stupid period that we're going through and I hope we make it. We have had a generation or two that don't understand cause and effect. Or how critical our military services are to our future survival.
In the Civil War, where socialites gathered with picnic baskets to watch the Union Arrmy send Johnny Reb home in defeat at the first batlle of Manasss (Bull Run).
Now, in World War 1, it wasn't as bad, since we declared war, then spun up, then sent troops overseas.
World War 2, with our first tanks being like the abominable Grant, with its non-turret-mounted main gun.
And bleeding our forces dry in time for Korea. Where military genius MacArthur got fired by Truman.
LBJ micromanaging Vietnam from the White House and our telling the UN observers (which IIRC included Soviet Generals who passed everything to the Norks).
And Bill Clinton (who should be hanged for treason) *giving* the ICBM guidance systems, and Cray supercomputers, to China. Ditto Madeleine not-tooBright and the Norks, and whoever-it-was declassifying the plans for the W-88 warhead.
And the Obama administration simply loathed the US and the military. I've read within the past week that we are having to cannibalize parts from overseas in order to maintain homeland defense forces; and of course the Corker bill and the pallets of billions in cold hard cash to the mullahs in Iran.
But the ROTC cadets in high heels, Bradley Manning, paying for sex changes, allowing open homosexuals to serve (and now women being drafted / on ships / etc.).
Who has so much dirt on Congress, or is bribing them, that none of them *sees* this?
Now we have a Congress (our "Representatives") who have for the most part never graced a uniform - or know someone who has.
You end up with a very small cadre of professionals that are more and more estranged from their public. Oh yeah, and squirrels who see the Armed Forces as their favorite hot house to try new and ridiculous and destructive social experiments.
I was invited a couple of years ago to speak at a Marine Corps Birthday (Nov 10) celebration and it's unlikely that they will ever invite me back. I told the audience that the uniforms and the flags and the pennants were dandy but they are not the Marine Corps: the Marine Corps is a killing instrument to be used when every other form of persuasion has failed. All the pretty stuff has no meaning at all, just window dressing for the horrific reality of what has to be done to keep our country warm and safe.
There is something to be said for "l'esprit de corps" and all that.
But you get folks who have no knowledge of fighting (perfumed princes) and they come to believe that the pageantry (and, unspoken, the graft and perks) are the actual reason for the institution.
And it is they who so often through self-importance and blundering pride, lead into dangerous situations or war.
Wesley Clark comes to mind -- didn't he nearly start a war with Russia in the Balkans by accident? And yet the DNC floated him as a fringe candidate to help some Dem's Presidential campaign or other -- might even have been John F'n Kerry.
I guess that we're lucky that they never made me Commandant: I would have disbanded the 8th and I drill teams, cut back all of the ceremonial posts, and given the President's Own to the White House, since they're musicians, not riflemen.
Then the Corps would focus in being the first in with everything - so when some damn dirtball country sees amphibious shipping offshore or the tailramp of a C-130 coming down, it's over.
It's more or less like that now but I'd make it leaner and meaner. Still waiting for the country to get over it's fascination with "Special Operators". When it's time to get serious, the Marines will be ready.
Too bad the Air Force won't just shuffle the A-10s over to the Corps... ;-)
The army needs to re-fight that battle: the Air Force is culturally incapable of doing real Close Air Support.
Over and out.
Sorry FRiend, but you are deeply confused about this issue -- perhaps a little too much brain-washing?
Read those words again, s-l-o-w-l-y and carefully, see if they don't make sense to you:
Do you see those words "Militia" and "necessary" together in the same sentence?
That was Founders' Original Intent more fully expressed in the Militia Acts of 1792.
Read it again, s-l-o-w-l-y and out loud:
Got that, FRiend: Militias are necessary, every citizen must serve in a militia.
Founders' Original Intent: learn it, love it, live it.
Nifster: "The right to self defense was a long standing right under English law.
Read about it. Read the court decisions"
Of course it is!, but it seems that years of brainwashing have reduced your ability to think critically, because, we are not here talking about a right to self defense, but rather about our duties as citizens, one of which is to serve in the military, if called.
That was Founders' Original Intent, so don't change the subject.
I agree, but note my post #80 above where I listed several duties of citizenship, according to Founders Original Intent, they include obeying laws, paying taxes, voting, serving on juries and in the military, if called.
The point of this discussion then is to say that whenever any sub-group of Americans demands full franchise as citizens (i.e., the right to vote), then along with those rights come duties and one of them is military service when necessary.
Yes, our Founders did exclude some citizens from the militia (i.e., stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen), because such duties were even more important in wartime, and on such grounds I'd also exclude young mothers.
Congress also recognized conscientious objections and in WWII (for example) provided them with alternate service (i.e., stateside medical orderlies) that sounds totally reasonable to me.
My point here is that rights of citizens come with duties and we can't have one without the others.
You disagree?
You don’t have to denigrate people that don’t agree with you
The founders came out of the British tradition where self defense was a primal right.
However, in my view, women would never be called to compulsory military service:
1. Motherhood is a unique duty that only they are qualified to do. If mothers are kept away from raising their children, the downstream effects can be enormous and permanent.
2. In my experience, warfare is not even slightly something that women are equipped to carry out. Yes, I am familiar with the tales of Kurdish and Soviet female snipers but that is not prolonged, direct, face-to-face combat. And that allows the male-female interactions to be minimal.
It's all very wonderful that some of us think that equality equals equivalency but that is false in the world of organized murder.
Now, quit sulking because women got the right to vote. Raising kids is probably one of the more essential duties to protect and further our form of government. I am sure that the Founding Fathers would agree.
Do you disagree?
God Forbid!
I agree, except for the "sulking" part.
But there's no disagreement, you're making a point I don't dispute.
My point is simply that Founders intended all citizens have a duty for military service, if called.
And you have not disagreed with that.
Nifster: "The founders came out of the British tradition where self defense was a primal right."
Agreed, as was iirc, universal military service when necessary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.