Posted on 06/11/2014 6:55:16 PM PDT by docbnj
The pacifist’s believe the military is a job source for women that want to make a difference.
Since there will be no combat for a military that is obsolete since war has been abolished, there will be no combat and no incapable women is actual combat situations
My humble ignoramusized opinion is that all citizens, male and female, should serve 2 years in the military combat units so they are familiar with guns so when they go back to civilian life they are not anti-American anti-2nd Amendment liberal moonbat wackos who do not understand the military and the U.S. Constitution. YUPYUPYUP
ALL ships are disciplinary nightmares.
The Navy has enough trouble with discipline in male only ships. Adding females to the mix just makes the discipline problem worse - MUCH WORSE!
Although you won’t find anyone still serving willing to go on the record who will say that - they’d lose their job and promotion opportunity. Problems with females in the combat arms and ships are hush-hush.
Keep in mind that the people who made the decision to put women in ships DID NOT AND DO NOT HAVE TO LIVE WITH EITHER THE WOMEN OR THE DECISION!
And, it is worth noting that they do not have to suffer any consequences, either. They will be long dead before the real consequences of their stupidity are realized.
The cost to the US Military has been enormous, and probably never will be calculated.
Political Correctness at work!
I have no problem with service to the country, and still believe that abolishing the draft was a terrible mistake.
HST, one does not need to serve in a combat unit to gain a full appreciation for America’s virtues.
I gather that the point of your post is that because other countries have women in combat arms, the USA should have women in combat arms?
What does it say about our society that we have to put women in harms way just to satisfy some feminzi demand?
11 to one -I WIN~~!!
“....the people who made the decision to put women in ships..”
Was that at CNO level or the higher civilian levels in DoD?
I suspect the latter. I was in Vietnam (Army) when Adm. Elmo Zumwalt was CNO; liberal as he was about some things, he would never have made nor implemented such a ruinous choice.
A few thoughts about the NLF, Viet Cong & NVA photos of female ‘soldiers’. Notice the NVA ‘soldiers’ are AAA gunners? Those are troops that don’t have to move about a lot and they are deployed near a base that they are defending. Not having to hump packs & ammo greatly reduces the combat stress on the body.
Second: (and I repeat myself here) the NLF/Viet Cong are partisan militia. These are units that basically are raised and fight within their own province and are not tasked with heavy offensive operations.
Third: The women in those photos do not look like they have been “living in the field”. They look freshly scrubbed and that makes me suspect that these are propaganda photos.
Male soldiers get rotated off the line at specific time intervals because combat effectiveness for the units drop after about 30 days, depending on the intensity of operations. A major underlying cause is nagging injuries reducing individual effectiveness.
At the Naval Academy we had some very good female athletes. Almost every female plebe was in crutches within a couple weeks — and we weren’t drilling with field packs. Shin splints, hamstring pulls and other muscular-skeletal injuries due to light-frames.
The IDF does have women in combat positions, but what you’ll find is that they serve in training echelons as Instructor-Pilots, Tank Drivers & Gunners at the Armor School, etc. In essence they are a trained, ready-reserve that if needed will fight defending their home turf in a last ditch.
“light frames”?
“At the Naval Academy we had some very good female athletes. Almost every female plebe was in crutches within a couple weeks — and we weren’t drilling with field packs. Shin splints, hamstring pulls and other muscular-skeletal injuries due to light-frames.”
where you gittin these academy girls from anywho? Up here we dun got mountain girls can pull a heifer outa the mud with their bare hands and carry it 200 yards to the barn-
You ben recruitin them city slicker women there-
what you need is BIG BONED MOUNTAIN WOMEN who drink beer, swear, curse, can carry a 30-30 for 10 miles in wintertime huntin deer, pick up a snowplow and attach to the truck at 40 below, and can heave haybales into the horsebarn all afternoon. I thunk you dun recruitin them weak puny thin skinny boned city slicker women there.
LOL! Seemed like every female we had was five foot two, 130-lbs.
BTW, I read your other posts about mandatory 2-year service for both sexes. I’m not sure that I agree with it, but I see your larger point.
I enjoyed our discussion!
Let me tell you a story. Decades ago I was a 2nd year summer lifeguard. The prevailing rule, seniority determined Head Lifeguard status. I had one year under my belt and was therefore considered Head Lifeguard by the Park Supervisor. Under me were three rookie guys. They decided that seniority should not determine Head Lifeguard status. Typical BS Guy behavior, BTW. I had a mutiny on my 1st day. I asked them how they wanted to determine Head Lifeguard status? Written Exam? Oral? They eyed me and answered a swim test. I agreed.
The park was in a borderline dangerous neighborhood. In that situation the Chicago Park District would assign a policeman as the Park Supervisor. Unbeknownst to the Rookies the Park Supervisor told me 1) because of the gang bangers I could close the pool anytime I determined that the situation called for it and 2) he wanted me to start up a swim team. In response to the Park Supervisor, I picked out kids that morning during the 1st free swim who I thought were “leaders” in the neighborhood and good swimmers.
With the Rookies standing next to me I chose these kids to judge the race and determine the winner. They got a bunch of other neighborhood kids together to see which lifeguard would win the Head Guard status. It was a 50 yard sprint. One of the kids (a 16 year old boy) started the race. I paced the big strong guys the 1st length. Then I kicked but and was out of the water before the Rookies finished the race. I built up a lot of street cred in those 30 seconds (my best time then was 25 seconds, so I was going really so) and the Rookies lost all theirs because a girl beat them really bad. Boys/men can be really stupid. Just sayin. ; )
BTW, the Naval Academy should recruit from swim teams. The girls will have half way decent upper body strength.
Well, discussions about women in the Navy go back to at least as far as 1953 when Secretary of Defense George Marshall convened. . . “a group of distinguished civilian women to consider what might be done to improve female recruitment. The group is named the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Service (DACOWITS) and still exists today.”
DACOWITS was the force behind all subsequent “advances” women have made in the military.
At http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/navy/plus/cron.html, the interested reader will find a Cliff’s Notes summary of females in the Navy.
HST, the pressure was on “The Brass” to expand the role of women in the military by virtually every segment of the society, except the Warriors, of course, who knew what would happen if women were allowed to serve in combat roles or in ships.
The decisions were made at high civilian levels in the government & Congress by people who either had not served or WOULD NOT HAVE TO SERVE with women.
Patsy Schroeder comes readily to mind as a devout feminist who almost daily pushed the Congress and the Pentagon to expand the role of women in the military, particularly after Tailhook ‘91.
Senior military officers were aFRaid to buck such people, and the DACOWITS feminazis made life absolutely miserable for officers who opposed their agenda — forcing many “passovers” and retirements.
Well, the outcome was foretold. When the PTB decided to feminize the military, all who stood in their way were bulldozed out of the way.
I defy anyone to provide proof that the war fighting capability of the US Armed Forces has been improved one iota by the inclusion of women in combat roles!
Poppycock!
This is Political Correctness run amok!
Warfighters opposed to women in combat roles in the military have been systematically eliminated FRom the chain of command through forced retirement or passover!
I defy anyone to provide proof that the war fighting capability of the US Armed Forces has been improved one iota by the inclusion of women in combat roles!
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
Related threads
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.