As a soldier vet, the very idea of women in combat horrifies me.
Here’s what I want to know, which could help settle the argument.
Since they are no longer required to do even one pull up, and couldn’t fight off a male attacker with their hands, are we going to let them have ammo in their weapons ?
Second Female Marine: I don't have a nail file on me but here's some new mascara I just got at the PX. So you'll look good in the infirmary when that handsome new Marine doctor checks you over………………..
It is all fun and games until the bullets start flying.
Our enemies could care less about social engineering and what is “fair.”
We live in a politically correct world now. The idea that girls can do anything that boys can is ingrained in school as girls grow up. So our culture celebrates women firemen, police officers, and women in the military now. All jobs which used to be done only by men.
Ladies first! (LOL!)
I’m a full believer in equal rights and the unisex concept.
I say physical standards should to equalized to that of the weakest person. Why should we jeopardize the self esteem of the weaker people in such a degrading way as to make them perform to some stupid standard?
Many men and women are scared to death of guns, guns are violent and they hurt people. Guns should be banned, this includes toy guns, pictures of guns and even using the word gun should be banned in our armed forces with strict penalties.
In times of war our armed forces should proudly march towards the enemy with baskets of fruit, flowers and food to give to our comrades on the other side. This showing of peace will undoubtedly show the entire world we are non-violent.
Of course I’m being sarcastic. Some leftist nutcase has probably in all seriousness put forth such totally looney ideas.
Agreed. Let’s end the draft for women.
Q: Are you willing to decapitate the enemy, sh*t down his neck, and send the picture home to his mommy?
That’s who we are fighting. Are you up to doing this, if that’s what it takes to defeat him?
Q: Are you willing to decapitate the enemy, sh*t down his neck, and send the picture home to his mommy?
That’s who we are fighting. Are you up to doing this, if that’s what it takes to defeat him?
I believe I am equal to or more capable than most of the guys I work next to in the private sector. I also like to work out a lot. I would never dream of being able to stand next to my little brother in Iraq or Afghanistan. This is going to get people killed.
And by the way this is a Congressional call and Congress has never said women are allowed in direct combat roles.
***********
Very good point.
Here are some interesting facts about military experience in the congress courtesy of the Congressional Research Service:
“At the beginning of the 113th Congress, there were 108 Members (20% of the total membership) who had served or were serving in the military, 10 fewer than at the beginning of the 112th Congress (118 Members) and 12 fewer than in the 111th Congress (120 members).
The number of veterans in the 113th Congress reflects the trend of steady decline in recent decades in the number of Members who have served in the military. For example, 64% of the members of the 97th Congress (1981-1982) were veterans; and in the 92nd Congress (1971-1972), 73% of the Members were veterans.”
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42964.pdf
The problem is twofold, in that few women, but some, can meet the physical requirements. However, the flip side of this is that the *best* male warriors often have a very strong instinct to protect females in danger.
You get some unstoppable warrior type, a real Rambo, and put a female near him in real, or just perceived danger, and Rambo might turn to Jello.
And no number of female soldiers will make up for losing even a few Rambo-types.
Importantly, there are a lot of men who would be more than willing to send female soldiers “out to draw fire”, but the vast majority of such men are pencil pushers and glass jaws not worth their salt in combat.
And this goes to an even deeper false paradigm in the military: that *any* guy can be trained to be a warrior.
In truth, you are lucky if 1 in 100 *combat* soldiers are “real warriors”. The rest are just along to hold their coat. And the ratio of combat soldiers to combat support and combat service support soldiers is something like 1:20.
The idea of “every man a soldier” only really goes back to the age of Napoleon, and the creation of mass armies. And even then, all the way through to Vietnam, on average hundreds of thousands, or even millions of bullets had to be expended for each enemy bullet casualty.
Except when fired from the gun of a real warrior, in which case, many or most of his bullets would cause an enemy casualty.
So, the bottom line is that putting women in combat roles will just end up getting more women and men killed, and many fewer missions accomplished. But those obsessed with putting women in combat roles don’t give a shiat about that.
I think all liberal women and feminists should sign up and serve.
Modern left wingers don’t go to battle. They send us to battle with no idea or desire to win. They are making a statement with young Americans blood. May The Lord grant a day of reckoning for the left.
I think we should have women 5’6” added to basket ball teams, and have baskets lower in the name of fairness and equality, to get the point across...
A feminist on Fox last night was demanding the Marines lower their physical standards/requirements to accomodate females. She was running roughshod over the rest of the panel.
War is coming to this country in the next couple of years so what difference does it make. It will actually make it easier for us if Barry’s army is a bunch of wimmin and fags.
what’s next? Men claiming they have a right to bear children?
It is depraved to have women in combat. Women need to be the bearer of the next generation.