Posted on 06/13/2012 3:41:24 PM PDT by kingattax
The United States Army is debating whether to admit women to Ranger School, its elite training program for young combat leaders.
Proponents argue this is to remove a final impediment to the careers of Army women. But the move would erode the unique Ranger ethos and culture—not to mention the program's rigorous physical requirements—harming its core mission of cultivating leaders willing to sacrifice everything for our nation.
The Army's 75th Ranger Regiment traces its roots back to World War II, when it won acclaim for penetrating deep behind Japanese lines. Founded in 1950, Ranger School teaches combat soldiers small-unit tactics and leadership under extreme duress. It pushes men harder than any other program in the Army's curriculum.
Competition to attend the course is fierce, with about 4,000 men eligible to attend each year. Only about half graduate. Of those, only 20% make it through without having to retake various phases.
For decades, completion of Ranger School has been the best indicator for determining which young men can handle the enormous responsibility of combat leadership
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Please read again, study, then write back.
You have Skype? Want to chat?
You have Skype? Want to chat?
Now regarding your statement:
“Any society that allows its women to fight on the front lines when not faced with total destruction is a sick nation (morally, ethically, and spiritually). Period.”
1. Too bad you can't debate your logic with a pioneer woman or a released indentured servant. I think it would be a very interesting discussion. (Please, don't fall back on your caveat - unless faced with total destruction. Although, it would be nice to have a few women trained for that scenario, don't you think?)
2. What's wrong with a having a 6+’ American Soldier who is highly motivated, challenge loving, has the heart of a lion, the cunning of a fox, and can shoot like a Texan fight with you? Oh shit, that's right, she's a woman. (slapping hand on forehead)
Negative on the Skype.
You make wild assertions about spray-painting a Force Recon marine’s ass, pulling 9 g’s without a g-suit (and probably not an inclined seat like an F-16) in an airplane rated for 6, and flying through thunderstorms, and you’re accusing someone else (probably me) of “braggadocio”?
You’re growing more delusional by the minute.
You’re reminding me of a trapped/cornered animal.
Ping.
The only problem I have is that I beat mediocre men on all levels. I am stating a fact not bragging. Hormones or no hormones. That does not mean that I would have been able to pass Ranger School. But that also means that you should not deny me the opportunity to try. That is all I am saying.
I do apologize for being rude and calling people pansies. That is revolting. Sorry.
We put 12 million men in uniform during WWII with a population half of what it is today.
I don’t think we’re going to run out of men.
I’m curious about what you do in your fourth year of the Marine Corp Reserves?
There were so many posts that I may not have got the true gist of the conversation. If so I appologize to all.
Well, thank you so much for your service. I know it sounds trite, but I truly mean it. Were you in Vietnam?
Well, thank you so much for your service. I know it sounds trite, but I truly mean it. Were you in Vietnam?
That’s the problem with guys. Too serious. Skype me and we’ll chat.
Nope - too young. Graduated high school in 1970.
That was one of the sexiest posts ever.
No offense intended, but damn you made your point very well.
Warriors aren’t interested in what you feel is fair, or really cool, or if someone is willing to give it the old “college try” although they can’t cut the mustard.
Warriors want to kill the enemy and win the battles with as little loss among themselves as possible. They want standards higher, not lower.
What combat leader would want to replace his man warriors with a shorter, lighter, weaker, sicklier, less aggressive, slower moving, more terrain limited, reduced distance traveling, hygienically vulnerable, smaller weight carrying, more prone to injury, version?
He would have to rewrite all the knowledge and experience, of what his troops are capable of and reduce all that accordingly, and simply eliminate some capabilities entirely, all things the enemy can measure, and use against his military.
That's OK, I'll manage without you thinking I'm cute. ; )
Funny I thought you Military types like it when your women can shoot. Isn't that feminism, feminism meaning a woman can manage on her own if required? Are you sure you are not confused?
Regards, Janey
2. All Soldiers must pass all qualifications to be Ranger Qualified.
We agree on this correct?
Yes.
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.