Posted on 02/18/2013 9:11:08 AM PST by jimluke01
The term “moronic” is defined as “notably stupid or lacking in good judgment.” It is frequently used as an insult.
The Obama administration is moronic.
This is not an insult.
President Obama’s latest “notably stupid” stoke of America’s calculated slow burn is the decision to lift the ban on women in direct combat. Along with the move a few years back to turn the Officers’ Club into the Blue Oyster Bar, this most recent social experiment with national security represents one small step for the “progressive” agenda and one giant prance toward the pansification of the greatest military in world history.
It’s a jaw-dropping “lack in good judgment.”
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Bring back the draft, now.
Serving your country should be a requirement, not an option.
Go back in and stay in until you effing die. Requiring people to serve with those who do not belong there merits permanently being forced to do the same.
Take a flying leap.
Conscription is just a mild form of slavery. I wouldn’t want anyone in my unit who didn’t want to be there. They turn out be a slow acting poison.
If women are capable in the role then great. They can get shot just as well as men. They deserve no special protections.
Some of them. But it is also true that there were many conscripts who served with distinction and did their job well.
But I am firmly against conscription except in cases of total unrestricted warfare. I think the quality of our forces since 1973 is a positive affirmation that an all volunteer force works, and works well.
As anyone knows who has spent even a short time in close contact with our modern military, they almost all bitch, gripe and complain to one degree or another.
Ususally, open griping is reduced to mutters when someone points out that they “signed up for it”...:)
I say make them all serve.....just make conscripted units of them......send them into combat.....thin the herd.....those who survive, send them to non-conscripted units......LOL
We outlawed slavery for reason.
The term “moronic” is defined as “notably stupid or lacking in good judgment.” It is frequently used as an insult.
The Obama administration is moronic.
This is not an insult.
President Obama’s latest “notably stupid” stoke of America’s calculated slow burn is the decision to lift the ban on women in direct combat. Along with the move a few years back to turn the Officers’ Club into the Blue Oyster Bar, this most recent social experiment with national security represents one small step for the “progressive” agenda and one giant prance toward the pansification of the greatest military in world history.
It’s a jaw-dropping “lack in good judgment.”
In 1991 the late Gen. Robert H. Barrow, former commandant of the Marine Corps, gave compelling testimony on the subject before the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee. He stated, “If you want to make a combat unit ineffective, assign some women to it. … In three wars – World War II, Korea and Vietnam – I found no place for women to be down in the ground combat element,” he concluded.
In a recent column headlined “Women in Ground Combat,” Bing West, former Marine officer and assistant secretary of defense under President Ronald Reagan, notes that, during his testimony, Gen. Barrow “cited the 1950 fighting retreat from the Chosin Reservoir in temperatures of minus 20 degrees, with one Marine division pitted against eight Chinese divisions. Had women comprised 15 percent of his division, Barrow concluded, the Marines would have lost the battle. ‘The very nature of women disqualifies them from doing it (killing so brutally),’ Barrow said. ‘Women give life, sustain life, nurture life; they don’t take it.’”
Evidently, Gen. Barrow never met one of today’s abortion-worshiping feminist “Flukes” of nature. Still, they only kill innocent children who can’t fight back.
In short, Gen. Barrow observed that opening the front lines to, um, “infantrywomen” would not only cost precious American lives, it would ultimately “destroy the Marine Corps.”
Now, I know, who the heck do Barrow and West think they are, right? Did they ever bravely serve God and country as a glorified teacher’s assistant at Harvard Law?
I think not.
Did they ever do “a little blow,” march with the Black Panthers, “organize their communities” into welfare-dependent hellholes, or drink lattes with “Marxist professors and the structural feminists”?
No.
Sheesh.
Even so, despite an obvious lack of credibility on combat readiness and a meager century or so in combined service, I think we should at least humor them a bit.
“To Barrow, a warrior admired by three generations of grunts,” wrote West, “ground combat meant killing under the harshest of circumstances. Barrow opposed the incorporation of women into infantry units characterized by primal instincts: sleeping, defecating, eating, and smelling like wolf packs while hunting down and slaughtering male soldiers.”
That’s the problem with political correctness – with liberalism in general. It raises a pseudo-utopian barrier to reality. Often times that barrier is deadly.
This is what happens when a gaggle of left-wing civilian politicians who don’t know which end of the gun goes “bang!” are placed in charge of national security. These yahoos couldn’t bust a grape with a sledge hammer, let alone lift a sledge hammer.
This is what happens when we allow “progressives” to deconstruct our culture by imposing, through public policy, the fantastical delusion of a “genderless society.”
I fully support women learning self-defense and packing heat for protection. I’ve known a number of gals so tough that, for his own safety, a fellow would be better served to break it off via text message should the relationship go south.
Still, as a former professional boxer and police officer, and having served 12 years in the armed services myself, I can say this without equivocation: While there may be the extremely rare anecdotal exception, in direct one-on-one military combat, the toughest, baddest, meanest chick out there is going to get stomped by the weakest infantryman.
This is life and death stuff. Women are no more made for the front lines than men are made for childbearing.
Don’t get me wrong – I love women. I’m married to a woman and am on the hook for two future weddings of future women who, admittedly, have me hopelessly wrapped around pink-polished little fingers.
Even so, if I’m on the front lines and Ahmed, Abdul and Hakeem come charging with fixed bayonets, I danged sure want Billy Bob, not Barbara, in my foxhole.
This doesn’t even scratch the surface. What of the sensitive dynamics of sex and jealousy? How about the reality that, despite feminist protestations to the contrary, chivalry is not dead? Men are naturally wired to protect the weaker sex, even if it runs counter to combat mission. Honorable men will drop everything to protect a woman, even if it means dying in the process.
If the presence of women is not a factor, than neither is sex, jealousy or chivalry (putting aside the whole “gays in the military” debacle). More importantly, if women remain shielded from direct combat, lives are saved and battles are won. Add women, and you add weakness. Both lives and battles are lost. It’s felony stupid.
Am I suggesting that the sitting president of the United States is stupid? Not exactly – not in terms of overall intelligence. But, as Momma Gump always said: “Stupid is as stupid does.”
I’m sure that Mr. Obama has an average or slightly above average IQ. Still, objectively, measurably – as a point of fact supported by the overwhelming weight of the evidence – this man stupidly, perhaps even seditiously, insists upon circumventing Congress to shovel executive order after executive order atop the Mount St. Helens of dictatorial dung heaps.
Eventually it has to blow.
The question is no longer whether Barack Obama is weakening every noble aspect of American life, including our military. The question now becomes whether the rest of us will be able to put the pieces back together once this radical lefty is finally back in Hawaii for good – Mai Tai in one hand and leather-bound copy of the Communist Manifesto in the other.
The question is whether America will survive Barack Obama.
So, can I now present myself as a freed slave?
Not while you’re prescribing it for others.
Women should not be in combat. War is no place for social experimentation.
“So, can I now present myself as a freed slave?”
If you are old enough to have been a slave, sure; otherwise, that was a rather lousy attempt at sarcasm.
A healthy nation understands that the purpose of a nation is to provide protection to it’s women. This is simply because bearing children is the primary purpose of humanity. It’s also very good for the nations future. However, we are no longer a nation so it’s difficult to explain this simple logic that has been common knowledge from the very start of human life on the planet.
This isn't simply "felony stupid". It's ultimately going to result in "felony murder" - the murder by a competent enemy of the weaker, less able women and the men forced to depend upon them for purposes of "political correctness" rather than military necessity and ability.
When a country loses a war, it loses a lot more than just the people in the armed forces. It loses everything, including it's independence and freedom to direct it's own destiny!
Of course, that's the plan, no?
Just imagine!
Think of what a newsreel would show if...
Battan death march, half the POWs women.
Omaha Beach. Half the attackers women.
Iwo Jima half the fighters women.
The USS Indianapolis. Half the drowned women.
There would be national outrage!
> Bring back the draft, now.
> Serving your country should be a requirement, not an option.
No way. I served in Vietnam with volunteers. I also saw many draftees. Draftees didn’t want to be there, resisted efforts to properly train them and could not be depended upon for anything. I would never want to go into the field with a draftee. Draftees will get you killed along with themselves.
If Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) can describe herself as a "freed slave", anyone can:
When are our friends on the other side of the aisle going to listen? I want to challenge this body to be the kind of "Lincolness attitude." As yesterday was the official birthday of President Lincoln, February 12, and although it was a tragic time in our history, I can assure you that it shows the greatest promise of America when people could come together and do something great. I stand here as a freed slave because this Congress came together.Quoted here
However, the divots on this thread who refuse to serve are just cowards who don't mind other people risking their lives and their bodies for their freedoms. "Conservatives" who don't serve aren't conservatives, they're parasites.
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.