Explaining women in combat arms

[cancel2 2022]

Why are you so afraid to see a little dick sucking?

Latent tendencies?

Because, and I will say it again, if a man posted a woman sucking a dick they would be out the door in double quick time. For some reason, you have been afforded special privileges and I'm fucked if I know why? Apparently Grind goes to Snarla to assess such matters, that is just so bizarre and fucked up I can't get my head around it!!

 

[cancel2 2022]

Oh.

Well if it's on a soap opera in Britain it's gotta be true!!!!

Don't you think that the media and feminist pressure groups would be all over it, if it wasn't based on truth?? Five years ago or even less, they wouldn't even dared to show it!! Especially showing a black woman as the instigator beating up a white male, you people in the US are sadly still in the dark ages when it comes to modern day life.

 

[SR_]

I just put up three links quoting Paneta and others stating standards would not be lowered, so you're just someone who doesn't live in reality.

I also put up links to women currently serving. The fact is women in the military have been saying for some time now that the Afghan and Iraq wars have put them on the front lines, and their being officially banned from combat duty has prevented them from reaping the rewards of that service. That is discrimination. They are doing the same work men are doing, but are not reaping the same benefits. THat's class-action level discrimination.

And so we take another giant step forward above the din of the neanderthals beating their chests and screaming "no".

Too bad. It is done.

They are not doing the same work. The work of an MP is not the same work as a mortarman. I mean.. youre casual association and misunderstanding of the same things that are continually clarified for you over and over again is embarrassing.

There has never been any woman who picked up a 240G Machine Gun and did the job of a machine gunner in an infantry squad on any mission in the history of the United States Armed Forces. Im not going to tell you this again. There has been a woman who was charged with operating a 240G Machine Gun as a turret gunner for a convoy op.

Before she was charged with this she had not carried that weapon hundreds of miles up and down mountains in addition to her full battle load in months and months of training prior to her deployment. She did not live with that weapon in the field while training to assualt a fixed position as a member of an infantry squad. She holds no responsibilities to the purpose of any infantry unit. She knows nothing of providing suppressive fire to provide cover to rush a position. Just because she rode in the truck behind the weapon does not make her an infantry machine gunner. She may be an MP, she may be a cook, she may be trained in arresting people, investigating crime scenes, and she may have been directed on the standard operating procedures of the 240G and told that if anything happens point towards the bad guys and shoot. She is not doing the same job, nor does she hold the same responsibilities to her fellow squad mates as an infantry machine gunner would.

Thats basically the story you keep falling for and are unwilling or unable to understand the simple facts of. The rewards for riding a turret gunner should be what? What benefits are she being denied? If youre saying that in order to take command of an infantry battalion it would be nice for that commander to have experience in leading an infantry platoon and understanding how to strategically command such units, and having battle experience in such commands is probably a good thing, then yes you would be right. There is no woman with those experiences that would justify such a position. Thats not class action level discrimination, THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A WOMAN TO ACCOMPLISH ANY OF THOSE MILESTONES.

No fucking MP woman who stood guard at a ECP is going to be put in command of an infantry unit. Guess what. NO FUCKING MAN IS EITHER. Those jobs and experiences and the training for both are not in the same hemisphere as being in an infantry unit.

I dont see having a female forced into a position she is not qualified to do, and then get in a combat situation where her responsibility affects the success or failure of the mission as well as the lives around her that depend on her to be able to do specific things as progress. I dont see why risking the lives of a fellow Marine so that a woman can say she does the job is a sign of a good thing. I cant really understand why you would either other than its just a pandering attempt to make you as a woman feel more equal to a man? You still depend on the same force to provide the defense for your nation. Are you saying that if you were wounded and you needed to be carried a specific distance in order to receive medical attention that would save your life that you would prefer a woman be there over a man, or you simply wouldnt care? What if it was your son? What if it was your brother? Are you really going to try and convince any of us that you feel like females are just as strong as males?

That your loved one would be in that position with so much at stake just so a woman could possibly get a better promotion? You really think thats progress? Thats a giant leap to you?

 

[NOVA]

Yet nobody called him out on this, whilst when I said that at least she had a "stonking pair of tits", that old buzzard Darla went apeshit!! Apparently the guideline is you can call all women who are not liberals cunts but woe betide if you transgress the holy writ of Darla.

I called him out on it several times and its still my sig. when I choose to display it.
No liberal would have the honesty or class to do it.....they stick together showing how hypocritical they really are....

 

[cancel2 2022]

They are not doing the same work. The work of an MP is not the same work as a mortarman. I mean.. youre casual association and misunderstanding of the same things that are continually clarified for you over and over again is embarrassing.

There has never been any woman who picked up a 240G Machine Gun and did the job of a machine gunner in an infantry squad on any mission in the history of the United States Armed Forces. Im not going to tell you this again. There has been a woman who was charged with operating a 240G Machine Gun as a turret gunner for a convoy op.

Before she was charged with this she had not carried that weapon hundreds of miles up and down mountains in addition to her full battle load in months and months of training prior to her deployment. She did not live with that weapon in the field while training to assualt a fixed position as a member of an infantry squad. She holds no responsibilities to the purpose of any infantry unit. She knows nothing of providing suppressive fire to provide cover to rush a position. Just because she rode in the truck behind the weapon does not make her an infantry machine gunner. She may be an MP, she may be a cook, she may be trained in arresting people, investigating crime scenes, and she may have been directed on the standard operating procedures of the 240G and told that if anything happens point towards the bad guys and shoot. She is not doing the same job, nor does she hold the same responsibilities to her fellow squad mates as an infantry machine gunner would.

Thats basically the story you keep falling for and are unwilling or unable to understand the simple facts of. The rewards for riding a turret gunner should be what? What benefits are she being denied? If youre saying that in order to take command of an infantry battalion it would be nice for that commander to have experience in leading an infantry platoon and understanding how to strategically command such units, and having battle experience in such commands is probably a good thing, then yes you would be right. There is no woman with those experiences that would justify such a position. Thats not class action level discrimination, THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A WOMAN TO ACCOMPLISH ANY OF THOSE MILESTONES.

No fucking MP woman who stood guard at a ECP is going to be put in command of an infantry unit. Guess what. NO FUCKING MAN IS EITHER. Those jobs and experiences and the training for both are not in the same hemisphere as being in an infantry unit.

I dont see having a female forced into a position she is not qualified to do, and then get in a combat situation where her responsibility affects the success or failure of the mission as well as the lives around her that depend on her to be able to do specific things as progress. I dont see why risking the lives of a fellow Marine so that a woman can say she does the job is a sign of a good thing. I cant really understand why you would either other than its just a pandering attempt to make you as a woman feel more equal to a man? You still depend on the same force to provide the defense for your nation. Are you saying that if you were wounded and you needed to be carried a specific distance in order to receive medical attention that would save your life that you would prefer a woman be there over a man, or you simply wouldnt care? What if it was your son? What if it was your brother? Are you really going to try and convince any of us that you feel like females are just as strong as males?

That your loved one would be in that position with so much at stake just so a woman could possibly get a better promotion? You really think thats progress? Thats a giant leap to you?

You have to understand that Darla has been brought up on Simone de Beauvoir, Andrea Dworkin, Erica Jong and Betty Friedan. As we all know they were all well versed in military affairs.

 

[NOVA]

What's the rest of the story, that the male general said "Senator Blunt" or "Senator Coburn" but switched to ma'am with Boxer?

And you're full of shit....I watched it, live and in color.....the General used Ma'am and Sir and Senator all day long with everyone that questioned him.....
I don't need anyone's opinions or perceptions of what happened....I witnessed it all as it occurred....and Boxer was being a childish ass in belittling this General....
We certainly heard no male complain when he answered Sir to them.
Boxer didn't recognize respect when hit in the face with it.

 

[Howey]

And you're full of shit....I watched it, live and in color.....the General used Ma'am and Sir and Senator all day long with everyone that questioned him.....
I don't need anyone's opinions or perceptions of what happened....I witnessed it all as it occurred....and Boxed was being a childish ass in belittling this General....

Why would it be "childish" for Boxer to demand the respect given to other Senators?

 

[NOVA]

I would say that Korea, the Falklands, Libya, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan were justified. There were many others where the West should have intervened but just sat on its hands and did nothing; Ruanda, Biafra, East Pakistan aka Bangla Desh, East Timor, Burma, Zimbabwe, Angola, Mozambique, Sudan, The Congo and Cambodia come to mind. In the case of Cambodia, the US actually supported the Kmer Rouge, how crazy is that? It took Vietnam the supposed bad guys to kick the bastards out!!

Interesting......why was the intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo justified.....and intervention in Iraq or Kuwait or Somalia was not....?

And you think the west should gotten involved in
Ruanda, Biafra, East Pakistan aka Bangla Desh, East Timor, Burma, Zimbabwe, Angola, Mozambique, Sudan, The Congo and Cambodia ? Why again.

You imagine us the superheros of the world with unlimited riches and expendable young soldiers ?

 

[NOVA]

Oh those PC bitches are at it again! NOw they have taken over the Generals and forced them to jump through their fembot hoops in order to keep their jobs.

Of course you believe this. You believe anyone and anything that supports your misogynistic world view.

Guess we're getting a whiff of what supports your misandrist feminist world view....

 

[NOVA]

Why would it be "childish" for Boxer to demand the respect given to other Senators?

It wouldn't be, scumbag.......she was given the same respect given to the other Senators.....Sir and Ma'am are not titles of disrespect.....
everyone that ever served in the military knows that and is taught that.....

 

[cancel2 2022]

Interesting......why was the intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo justified.....and intervention in Iraq or Kuwait or Somalia was not....?

And you think the west should gotten involved in
Ruanda, Biafra, East Pakistan aka Bangla Desh, East Timor, Burma, Zimbabwe, Angola, Mozambique, Sudan, The Congo and Cambodia ? Why again.

You imagine us the superheros of the world with unlimited riches and expendable young soldiers ?

The Indonesians were kicked out of East Timor by the Australians in a matter of weeks.

The UN was already in Bosnia and just stood by whilst Muslim men were sent to their deaths in thousands in places like Srebrenica.

The Vietnamese kicked the Kmer Rouge out of Cambodia when the US and the West were all for recognising the bastards in the UN.

Nearly a million people were killed in Ruanda and it could easily have been stopped if a UN force had been sent in early enough.

The first Gulf War was justified but the second was not.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

They are not doing the same work. The work of an MP is not the same work as a mortarman. I mean.. youre casual association and misunderstanding of the same things that are continually clarified for you over and over again is embarrassing.

There has never been any woman who picked up a 240G Machine Gun and did the job of a machine gunner in an infantry squad on any mission in the history of the United States Armed Forces. Im not going to tell you this again. There has been a woman who was charged with operating a 240G Machine Gun as a turret gunner for a convoy op.

Before she was charged with this she had not carried that weapon hundreds of miles up and down mountains in addition to her full battle load in months and months of training prior to her deployment. She did not live with that weapon in the field while training to assualt a fixed position as a member of an infantry squad. She holds no responsibilities to the purpose of any infantry unit. She knows nothing of providing suppressive fire to provide cover to rush a position. Just because she rode in the truck behind the weapon does not make her an infantry machine gunner. She may be an MP, she may be a cook, she may be trained in arresting people, investigating crime scenes, and she may have been directed on the standard operating procedures of the 240G and told that if anything happens point towards the bad guys and shoot. She is not doing the same job, nor does she hold the same responsibilities to her fellow squad mates as an infantry machine gunner would.

Thats basically the story you keep falling for and are unwilling or unable to understand the simple facts of. The rewards for riding a turret gunner should be what? What benefits are she being denied? If youre saying that in order to take command of an infantry battalion it would be nice for that commander to have experience in leading an infantry platoon and understanding how to strategically command such units, and having battle experience in such commands is probably a good thing, then yes you would be right. There is no woman with those experiences that would justify such a position. Thats not class action level discrimination, THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A WOMAN TO ACCOMPLISH ANY OF THOSE MILESTONES.

No fucking MP woman who stood guard at a ECP is going to be put in command of an infantry unit. Guess what. NO FUCKING MAN IS EITHER. Those jobs and experiences and the training for both are not in the same hemisphere as being in an infantry unit.

I dont see having a female forced into a position she is not qualified to do, and then get in a combat situation where her responsibility affects the success or failure of the mission as well as the lives around her that depend on her to be able to do specific things as progress. I dont see why risking the lives of a fellow Marine so that a woman can say she does the job is a sign of a good thing. I cant really understand why you would either other than its just a pandering attempt to make you as a woman feel more equal to a man? You still depend on the same force to provide the defense for your nation. Are you saying that if you were wounded and you needed to be carried a specific distance in order to receive medical attention that would save your life that you would prefer a woman be there over a man, or you simply wouldnt care? What if it was your son? What if it was your brother? Are you really going to try and convince any of us that you feel like females are just as strong as males?

That your loved one would be in that position with so much at stake just so a woman could possibly get a better promotion? You really think thats progress? Thats a giant leap to you?

YOu use a lot of words to say nothing, and you say it over and over. Your voice is not privileged by me over the many women on the frontlines who are stating that they are on the front lines and in combat. You are stunned by this because you are used to having your voice priviledged over women, gays, and others. This is a shock to your system.

But you'll have to get used to it because they've been in combat, and now your superiors have determined that they are going to make it official so these women in combat can accrue the same benefits the men they are fighting next to accrue.

It's done.

 

[christiefan915]

<snip>

Im assuming assuming fucking stupid people such as yourself would be livid if positions remained closed to women because they could not sufficiently succeed due to the physical standards and requirements of the MOS's in question. Could you ever see yourself saying "Well, clearly women are not able to do these jobs and the restriction is warranted."?

If they said positions remained closed to men who could not sufficiently succeed due to lack of advanced intellectual standards and critical thinking skills, I could clearly see how it applies to you.

 

[Phantasmal]

I called him out on it several times and its still my sig. when I choose to display it.
No liberal would have the honesty or class to do it.....they stick together showing how hypocritical they really are....

Said Popeye the hypocrite

 

[Howey]

It wouldn't be, scumbag.......she was given the same respect given to the other Senators.....Sir and Ma'am are not titles of disrespect.....
everyone that ever served in the military knows that and is taught that.....

Nobody ever said they were titles of disrespect; but apparently her fellow male Senators were addressed as "Senator" as opposed to "Sir", so why shouldn't Boxer have been addressed accordingly?

Aside from the fact that once again, you dredge up something from four years ago in another fitful rage of indignation, who really gives a fuck? Hell, not even FOX!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/200...ology-rebuking-brigadier-general-called-maam/

The Pentagon refused to jump into the fray Friday.

"The matter was between the two and we have nothing to add," Pentagon spokeswoman Eileen Lainez said in a statement to FOXNews.com.

The Veterans of Foreign Wars supported both Boxer and Walsh and downplayed the exchange.

"The general is 100 percent correct in responding to members of Congress with 'Sir' or 'Ma'am.' The senator, on the other hand, is also correct, though probably everyone now agrees that this should have been handled differently, if at all," the group said in a statement.

"There are far more important issues facing America -- from national security to the proper care and treatment of veterans, military service member and their families -- and this difference of opinion in salutations is not one of them."

I mean, seriously, Bravo, is this all you have to bitch and moan about????

 

[cancel2 2022]

If they said positions remained closed to men who could not sufficiently succeed due to lack of advanced intellectual standards and critical thinking skills, I could clearly see how it applies to you.

I think he makes a lot of sense and is rationally and reasonably explaining the practical difficulties. But then if you think that soldiers shouldn't be deployed anyway, it's all an academic exercise. I think what will happen is that a few platoons will be formed with women in, for political expediency, but they will not be deployed in the frontline.

 

[cancel2 2022]

If they said positions remained closed to men who could not sufficiently succeed due to lack of advanced intellectual standards and critical thinking skills, I could clearly see how it applies to you.

They are not called grunts for no reason, the primary consideration for frontline infantry is physical strength and endurance. That's pretty much all he is saying but you've taking it to mean that he is some kind of woman hater because he is stating the obvious.

 

[christiefan915]

I think he makes a lot of sense and is rationally and reasonably explaining the practical difficulties. But then if you think that soldiers shouldn't be deployed anyway, it's all an academic exercise. I think what will happen is that a few platoons will be formed with women in, for political expediency, but they will not be deployed in the frontline.

You should go and read his back posts. He made what he considered reasonable arguments that gays destroyed military cohesiveness, they would flaunt sexual behaviour, rush to get married so they could get bennies for their spouses, and other silly suppositions. Now it's been a year since Obama ended DADT and none of his predictions came about. Even a think tank came to that conclusion.

The Palm Center, a think tank that studies issues of sexuality and the military, released a study in September 2012 that found no negative consequences, nor any effect on military effectiveness from DADT repeal. This study began six months following repeal and concluded at the one year mark.The study included surveys of 553 generals and admirals who had opposed repeal, experts who supported DADT, and more than 60 heterosexual, gay, lesbian and bisexual active duty service personnel.[SUP][185][/SUP][SUP][186][/SUP]

SR made his arguments about women and Panetta made his ruling. Now I'm taking a wait-and-see approach but sense that the combat business it won't be as horrible as SR supposes. If it turns out to be a complete failure, I'll be happy to eat crow. I wonder if he'll do the same if everything turns out fine.

 

[christiefan915]

They are not called grunts for no reason, the primary consideration for frontline infantry is physical strength and endurance. That's pretty much all he is saying but you've taking it to mean that he is some kind of woman hater because he is stating the obvious.

I don't know what his personal feelings are about women. But on this issue, and the DADT issue, he clearly showed that he's not willing to give others the same opportunities he has. I think everyone should have a chance to stand or fall on their own merits and not be lumped into a sweeping generalization.

 

[cancel2 2022]

You should go and read his back posts. He made what he considered reasonable arguments that gays destroyed military cohesiveness, they would flaunt sexual behaviour, rush to get married so they could get bennies for their spouses, and other silly suppositions. Now it's been a year since Obama ended DADT and none of his predictions came about. Even a think tank came to that conclusion.

The Palm Center, a think tank that studies issues of sexuality and the military, released a study in September 2012 that found no negative consequences, nor any effect on military effectiveness from DADT repeal. This study began six months following repeal and concluded at the one year mark.The study included surveys of 553 generals and admirals who had opposed repeal, experts who supported DADT, and more than 60 heterosexual, gay, lesbian and bisexual active duty service personnel.[SUP][185][/SUP][SUP][186][/SUP]

SR made his arguments about women and Panetta made his ruling. Now I'm taking a wait-and-see approach but sense that the combat business it won't be as horrible as SR supposes. If it turns out to be a complete failure, I'll be happy to eat crow. I wonder if he'll do the same if everything turns out fine.

I didn't see what he said about gays but only time will tell how well that works out. As for women, I suspect there are many that will never admit if it all goes wrong as there is far too much political capital invested in it to concede such a thing. It wasn't that long ago that an amphibious assault was being contemplated in Kuwait, can you really see a first wave of women assaulting the beaches?