What interesting military leadership we have.

[Lavaduder]

Disclaimer: I am not insulting or poking fun at the brave men and women who served to protect our country. I am not mocking refugees or those that helped us in war efforts. I AM ANGRY THAT OUR LEADERS ARE ABSOLUTE SADISTS.

What a glorious military we got here in America. Our wonderful leadership who clearly can fight a war and not prolong it for 20-30 years just for us to lose. Our intelligent generals who can clearly command and re-moralize our troops in desperate times. Clearly Eisenhower was wrong to say the American Industrial complex is a dangerous thing to keep unchecked.

But you know considering the recent failure in Kubal. We the U S of A congress in our "godlike wisedom" that we got out of the nearest toilet, have found the solution. We need more bikinis on the draft. It wasn't that our superior fire power, and intel was never used effectively, or that we had a coward for an alley. Obviously we would have won the war if our soldiers had a pocket mommy to follow them around. "Remember sweetie to brush your teeth. The taliban might not enjoy your halitosis."

You see guys this is how our lovely congress fixes the "Too many of our boys are dying and suffering out there." Now it's "Too many of our daughters are dying and suffering out there." Yay for diversity and equality. That's totally what we meant, you're smart congress, really smart.

The Arguments for putting females on the draft are as follows

1. Making the army more inclusive. Because bullets are sad they don't get to hurt woman more often. Don't forget the slogan "Unless those tanks are shooting woman they are sexist." Oh remember all the poor Islamic countries of the world would never ever rape POWs.
   
2. Making sure those that avoid the draft by declaring themselves females. Are not going to not avoid the draft because somehow a bunch of expert draft dodgers would suddenly not be able to dodge the draft. Mean while honest gals with one or two kids would never be assigned to an squad.

I don't know about you, but it seems the female draft means more money, and lives for a war effort where we are not allowed to win. Our generals should be put on trial for treason!

 

[Sketcher]

Hey, the feminists wanted equality.

 

[Arcangl86]

Disclaimer: I am not insulting or poking fun at the brave men and women who served to protect our country. I am not mocking refugees or those that helped us in war efforts. I AM ANGRY THAT OUR LEADERS ARE ABSOLUTE SADISTS.

What a glorious military we got here in America. Our wonderful leadership who clearly can fight a war and not prolong it for 20-30 years just for us to lose. Our intelligent generals who can clearly command and re-moralize our troops in desperate times. Clearly Eisenhower was wrong to say the American Industrial complex is a dangerous thing to keep unchecked.

But you know considering the recent failure in Kubal. We the U S of A congress in our "godlike wisedom" that we got out of the nearest toilet, have found the solution. We need more bikinis on the draft. It wasn't that our superior fire power, and intel was never used effectively, or that we had a coward for an alley. Obviously we would have won the war if our soldiers had a pocket mommy to follow them around. "Remember sweetie to brush your teeth. The taliban might not enjoy your halitosis."

You see guys this is how our lovely congress fixes the "Too many of our boys are dying and suffering out there." Now it's "Too many of our daughters are dying and suffering out there." Yay for diversity and equality. That's totally what we meant, you're smart congress, really smart.

The Arguments for putting females on the draft are as follows

1. Making the army more inclusive. Because bullets are sad they don't get to hurt woman more often. Don't forget the slogan "Unless those tanks are shooting woman they are sexist." Oh remember all the poor Islamic countries of the world would never ever rape POWs.
   
2. Making sure those that avoid the draft by declaring themselves females. Are not going to not avoid the draft because somehow a bunch of expert draft dodgers would suddenly not be able to dodge the draft. Mean while honest gals with one or two kids would never be assigned to an squad.

I don't know about you, but it seems the female draft means more money, and lives for a war effort where we are not allowed to win. Our generals should be put on trial for treason!

You do realize that women are already allowed to serve in all combat roles right? So your first point is moot. As for the second, I have not heard anybody claim that as support for the draft. Real life isn't MASH.

As for your demand that we put our generals on trial for treason, under what justification? They were following the policies set by their civilian commanders.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Disclaimer: I am not insulting or poking fun at the brave men and women who served to protect our country. I am not mocking refugees or those that helped us in war efforts. I AM ANGRY THAT OUR LEADERS ARE ABSOLUTE SADISTS.

What a glorious military we got here in America. Our wonderful leadership who clearly can fight a war and not prolong it for 20-30 years just for us to lose. Our intelligent generals who can clearly command and re-moralize our troops in desperate times. Clearly Eisenhower was wrong to say the American Industrial complex is a dangerous thing to keep unchecked.

But you know considering the recent failure in Kubal. We the U S of A congress in our "godlike wisedom" that we got out of the nearest toilet, have found the solution. We need more bikinis on the draft. It wasn't that our superior fire power, and intel was never used effectively, or that we had a coward for an alley. Obviously we would have won the war if our soldiers had a pocket mommy to follow them around. "Remember sweetie to brush your teeth. The taliban might not enjoy your halitosis."

You see guys this is how our lovely congress fixes the "Too many of our boys are dying and suffering out there." Now it's "Too many of our daughters are dying and suffering out there." Yay for diversity and equality. That's totally what we meant, you're smart congress, really smart.

The Arguments for putting females on the draft are as follows

1. Making the army more inclusive. Because bullets are sad they don't get to hurt woman more often. Don't forget the slogan "Unless those tanks are shooting woman they are sexist." Oh remember all the poor Islamic countries of the world would never ever rape POWs.
   
2. Making sure those that avoid the draft by declaring themselves females. Are not going to not avoid the draft because somehow a bunch of expert draft dodgers would suddenly not be able to dodge the draft. Mean while honest gals with one or two kids would never be assigned to an squad.

I don't know about you, but it seems the female draft means more money, and lives for a war effort where we are not allowed to win. Our generals should be put on trial for treason!

You know we haven't used the draft in 50 years, right?

 

[Lavaduder]

You do realize that women are already allowed to serve in all combat roles right? So your first point is moot. As for the second, I have not heard anybody claim that as support for the draft. Real life isn't MASH.

As for your demand that we put our generals on trial for treason, under what justification? They were following the policies set by their civilian commanders.

Allowed vs Forced.

You know we haven't used the draft in 50 years, right?

So why update it? Because we still use it.

 

[hislegacy]

Allowed vs Forced.

So why update it? Because we still use it.

There has not been an active draft in 45 years?

 

[Arcangl86]

Allowed vs Forced.

Your rant seems to be about the combat effectiveness of the military if women were added to the draft. But women are already serving in combat in most specialities, so I fail to see why adding them to the draft would have the catastrophic effects you are claiming about.

 

[hislegacy]

There is no draft.

 

[miamited]

Disclaimer: I am not insulting or poking fun at the brave men and women who served to protect our country. I am not mocking refugees or those that helped us in war efforts. I AM ANGRY THAT OUR LEADERS ARE ABSOLUTE SADISTS.




You see guys this is how our lovely congress fixes the "Too many of our boys are dying and suffering out there." Now it's "Too many of our daughters are dying and suffering out there." Yay for diversity and equality. That's totally what we meant, you're smart congress, really smart.

The Arguments for putting females on the draft are as follows

1. Making the army more inclusive. Because bullets are sad they don't get to hurt woman more often. Don't forget the slogan "Unless those tanks are shooting woman they are sexist." Oh remember all the poor Islamic countries of the world would never ever rape POWs.
   
2. Making sure those that avoid the draft by declaring themselves females. Are not going to not avoid the draft because somehow a bunch of expert draft dodgers would suddenly not be able to dodge the draft. Mean while honest gals with one or two kids would never be assigned to an squad.

Hi @Lavaduder

Interesting post. I'm guessing that you're not supportive of women in the military? However, I'm not sure your position is shared by a lot of women. The United States does not currently have an active draft. We haven't had a draft since 1972. Since then, the military has been a totally voluntary force. So, your post begs the question. If our military forces are made up of all volunteer troops--then why is it made of nearly 18% women...if they don't want to be there? They volunteered, they weren't drafted as your post seems to insinuate.

God bless,
Ted

 

[renniks]

There are real problems with females being in active combat. Just go to YouTube and watch the pugil stick combat training.
Sure there are exceptions, but in most cases women don't have the weight and strength for realistic hand to hand combat.
I have no problem with women in the military.
I just think we should be realistic about the problems. Maybe they don't belong in infantry.

 

[Thomas White]

There are real problems with females being in active combat. Just go to YouTube and watch the pugil stick combat training.
Sure there are exceptions, but in most cases women don't have the weight and strength for realistic hand to hand combat.
I have no problem with women in the military.
I just think we should be realistic about the problems. Maybe they don't belong in infantry.

I can say from personal experience that a woman is just as effective at hand-to-hand combat as a man if she is trained and prepared, but that has no bearing on the topic being discussed. How much of modern warfare is hand-to-hand combat?

 

[renniks]

I can say from personal experience that a woman is just as effective at hand-to-hand combat as a man if she is trained and prepared, but that has no bearing on the topic being discussed. How much of modern warfare is hand-to-hand combat?

Why do females get a pass on a lower level of physical ability?
Because on average they are not capable of the same level. That's just reality.
You don't think this has real implications in a war?

 

[Thomas White]

Why do females get a pass on a lower level of physical ability?
Because on average they are not capable of the same level. That's just reality.
You don't think this has real implications in a war?

Even if that were true, it would not have implications for postmodern warfare. How would it?

 

[miamited]

Why do females get a pass on a lower level of physical ability?
Because on average they are not capable of the same level. That's just reality.
You don't think this has real implications in a war?

Hi @renniks

While I really abhor that anyone dies in warfare; while I dislike the idea of women also making such sacrifices, I don't believe that in modern warfare, physical strength really has much to do with one's ability to participate in some war. Yes, there was a time, in the days when you had to wait to 'see the white's of' the enemies eyes, to fight hand to hand with sword and musket, that physical strength would be an advantage. But most clashes between armies today, and pretty much since Vietnam are not fought hand to hand in battle lines. That's not to say that it doesn't happen, but it is certainly far, far from the norm of two armies meeting one another.

So, I say all that just to say that while I would agree that I'd prefer women didn't follow after the wicked hearts of men in this blood thirst called war. I don't believe that physical strength is a particularly valid excuse for them not to.

God bless,
Ted

 

[renniks]

Even if that were true, it would not have implications for postmodern warfare. How would it?

Are you saying that postmodern warfare doesn't require a certain level of physical ability? I don't understand what you are getting at. We still have infantry. And hand-to-hand combat isn't unheard of.

 

[renniks]

Hi @renniks

While I really abhor that anyone dies in warfare; while I dislike the idea of women also making such sacrifices, I don't believe that in modern warfare, physical strength really has much to do with one's ability to participate in some war. Yes, there was a time, in the days when you had to wait to 'see the white's of' the enemies eyes, to fight hand to hand with sword and musket, that physical strength would be an advantage. But most clashes between armies today, and pretty much since Vietnam are not fought hand to hand in battle lines. That's not to say that it doesn't happen, but it is certainly far, far from the norm of two armies meeting one another.

So, I say all that just to say that while I would agree that I'd prefer women didn't follow after the wicked hearts of men in this blood thirst called war. I don't believe that physical strength is a particularly valid excuse for them not to.

God bless,
Ted

Seriously, go join the Marines and see how much you have to carry and how far you have to march and get back to me on that.

 

[miamited]

Seriously, go join the Marines and see how much you have to carry and how far you have to march and get back to me on that.

Hi @renniks

Yes, in basic training there is a lot of physical effort required. I went through Army basic, but I can't really recall doing anything that a woman just couldn't do. It would be dirty and grimy, and there'd be lots of sweating and effort, but women have muscles just like men and if they use them just like men, then they'll become much stronger with more stamina. I do remember carrying heavy while marching for long distances, but I can't really imagine that a woman couldn't do that. At Ft. Knox it was the march to Suicide Hill that was the toughest. But if someone literally dropped out, there was a jeep that would come along and get those who fell. While I'm sure it was embarrassing to be seen riding in the jeep, it didn't disqualify anyone from service just because they couldn't complete a force march.

Again, force marches aren't a big part of today's modern military. However, as a testament to the greater physical exertion that the Marine basic program requires, according to the military stats, the Marines have the lowest rate of women troops.

God bless,
Ted

 

[iluvatar5150]

Hi @renniks

Yes, in basic training there is a lot of physical effort required. I went through Army basic, but I can't really recall doing anything that a woman just couldn't do. It would be dirty and grimy, and there'd be lots of sweating and effort, but women have muscles just like men and if they use them just like men, then they'll become much stronger with more stamina. I do remember carrying heavy while marching for long distances, but I can't really imagine that a woman couldn't do that. At Ft. Knox it was the march to Suicide Hill that was the toughest. But if someone literally dropped out, there was a jeep that would come along and get those who fell. While I'm sure it was embarrassing to be seen riding in the jeep, it didn't disqualify anyone from service just because they couldn't complete a force march.

Again, force marches aren't a big part of today's modern military. However, as a testament to the greater physical exertion that the Marine basic program requires, according to the military stats, the Marines have the lowest rate of women troops.

God bless,
Ted

The Army has been trying to re-work its fitness requirements over the last few years to make them gender-neutral while still adequate for the Army's needs. From what I've read, there's one specific exercise, the leg tuck that's been the source of much of the ongoing gender disparity in the pass/fail rates. I can't find the article right now, but I seem to recall reading that if you remove that one skill from the test, the female pass rate went from something like below 50% up to 96%. I could be off on those numbers, but the point is that the difference was dramatic.

If that one exercise is enough to cause such a difference and drum out otherwise qualified personnel, it's worth examining whether or not that exercise is a good proxy for the skills that the Army needs. If it is, then it's probably worth retaining the test and altering the training to improve performance. If it's not a good proxy, then it's probably worth adjusting the test further.

 

[miamited]

The Army has been trying to re-work its fitness requirements over the last few years to make them gender-neutral while still adequate for the Army's needs. From what I've read, there's one specific exercise, the leg tuck that's been the source of much of the ongoing gender disparity in the pass/fail rates. I can't find the article right now, but I seem to recall reading that if you remove that one skill from the test, the female pass rate went from something like below 50% up to 96%. I could be off on those numbers, but the point is that the difference was dramatic.

If that one exercise is enough to cause such a difference and drum out otherwise qualified personnel, it's worth examining whether or not that exercise is a good proxy for the skills that the Army needs. If it is, then it's probably worth retaining the test and altering the training to improve performance. If it's not a good proxy, then it's probably worth adjusting the test further.

Hi @iluvatar5150

Could be, I don't know. I went through army basic training in 1973. I don't recall any exercises or maneuver training that a female likely couldn't accomplish. Yes, I understand that male and female we are built differently and have different strengths and weaknesses. But having some familiarity with fairly modern warfare training and seeing a lot of 'how' warfare is conducted these days, I really can't imagine, other than the basic privacy concerns, that most females couldn't do what any man does on the battlefield,...If that's what they'd like to do as a job or career.

Just consider that there are actual soldiers, yes people who went through the same rigors of basic training as any other soldier, that can sit in a chair in Arizona and operate a drone to bomb combatants anywhere around the world. Surely any woman could do that!

Of course, for the last 50 years we've had an all volunteer force and so any female that feels it isn't the place for them, or any male that feels it isn't the place for them, can find other employment.

God bless,
Ted

 

[renniks]

Hi @renniks

Yes, in basic training there is a lot of physical effort required. I went through Army basic, but I can't really recall doing anything that a woman just couldn't do. It would be dirty and grimy, and there'd be lots of sweating and effort, but women have muscles just like men and if they use them just like men, then they'll become much stronger with more stamina. I do remember carrying heavy while marching for long distances, but I can't really imagine that a woman couldn't do that. At Ft. Knox it was the march to Suicide Hill that was the toughest. But if someone literally dropped out, there was a jeep that would come along and get those who fell. While I'm sure it was embarrassing to be seen riding in the jeep, it didn't disqualify anyone from service just because they couldn't complete a force march.

Again, force marches aren't a big part of today's modern military. However, as a testament to the greater physical exertion that the Marine basic program requires, according to the military stats, the Marines have the lowest rate of women troops.

God bless,
Ted

Yes and talking to Marines, I find that they have to help the women make it through basic often and that the women don't have to go through as vigorous a test of physical strength and agility to pass. That's just reality. A light woman is not going to be able to carry the same amount of weight as a small male, in spite of every movie saying otherwise. I'm sure bigger built women do just fine.
In a war, a 90 lb woman pulling a 200 lb male off the field just doesn't seem realistic either.
But, then I also hear concerns that men who should not make it through training are being passed and standards are being lowered in some cases for them also. This doesn't give one a lot of confidence should we actually go to war.
I remember a job I had once where we had to wheel around barrels that weighed up to 400 or so lbs. We didn't carry them just tilt them on edge and move them onto pallets, etc. There were no women working there. If you could not tilt up the barrel you just didn't get hired. Some might see that as unjust or sexist, but it was just the reality of the job. As I said, I have no problem with women in the service. but I really think the Marines were better off without women. It's just the nature of the job.