Page 15 of 52 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 519

Thread: Marine Corp Delays Pull-Up Requirement for Female Marines

  1. #141
    Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    11-30-13 @ 07:05 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,293

    Re: Marine Corp Delays Pull-Up Requirement for Female Marines

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    Of course, if she can. Not everyone can take all birth control methods though. I'm just thinking that it's not like a pregnancy is something that happens often in most cases, so I don't see what the big deal is.
    Losing a soldier while conducting combat operations that could have easily been avoided is not a big deal?
    "“If we don’t deepen our ports all along the Gulf — places like Charleston, South Carolina; or Savannah, Georgia; or Jacksonville, Florida…” -Obama

  2. #142
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    Re: Marine Corp Delays Pull-Up Requirement for Female Marines

    Quote Originally Posted by ItAin'tFree View Post
    Losing a soldier while conducting combat operations that could have easily been avoided is not a big deal?
    Give me a break. It's not like they can't get a replacement. Pregnancy is a temporary situation and not always avoidable, especially if you're a married person.

  3. #143
    Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    11-30-13 @ 07:05 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,293

    Re: Marine Corp Delays Pull-Up Requirement for Female Marines

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    That these men can't do anything and are complete imbeciles if there are women around.
    Who said that? besides you?
    "“If we don’t deepen our ports all along the Gulf — places like Charleston, South Carolina; or Savannah, Georgia; or Jacksonville, Florida…” -Obama

  4. #144
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 03:32 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Marine Corp Delays Pull-Up Requirement for Female Marines

    My view of the Marines in combat comes from a former Marine who was a small squad leader for which his team was the first squad to go on foot securing village after village thru the Hellman District of Afghanistan all the way to the Pakistan border and back - that was the most remote and dangerous in the war. His relatives literally saw the Marines as having put him as a troublemaker in boot camp as head of a small squad of boot camp troublemakers on a virtual suicide mission to teach him and them a lesson.

    He had volunteered specifically because he wanted the life experience of being a soldier killing the enemy. He enlisted to obtain that goal - the goal of hunting people in the context of war. He had hunted every other kind of animal before this. It wasn't for God and country. He was open to everyone why he was joining the Marines. Not a big guy, but state wrestling champ. Been hunting from the farm he grew on since a child. It was to experience being a soldier killing the enemy. To hunt humans in that context. He wanted to, as a soldier, hunt people. People who also were soldiers, so it a "fair" fight. Like hunting deer on their turf, where the deer get to shoot back.

    In boot camp he defied his immediate CO in war exercises, claiming if he followed the CO's commands he would get his squad killed - so he wouldn't do it since the exercises were supposed to be real. In response, then they made him and a few other "won't do it" newbies play the role of the insurgents. The punishment didn't work. He and his squad not only would repel the Marines in exercises, he even pulled off the unthinkable - capturing a Marine and dragging him away - literally beating that Marine into submission and dragging him off - since it is suppose to be done as if "real." The absolute last thing our military wants is insurgents to capture a live soldier, and he and his small squad of boot camp enlistees playing as insurgents had done it.

    So they sent him and that little squad to Afghanistan in the Hellman District, giving the order for them to go West to the Pakistan border, which is exactly what his squad did. This is what he wanted, to HUNT "the enemy." So, the entire time he was there, he and his little squad trekked across and around that district, absolutely not wanting any support, and with the heaviest weapon they had being 1 full auto - hunting and killing insurgents (or "the outsiders" as he called them). In the end, he said became boring. Word was preceding them and all potential targets would "run far away and hide." No artillery or air support. Just a small group of "hunters" with their hunting rifles - so to speak.

    That no one was willing to even try to lay in ambush over - and they weren't sneaking around. They would camp in the open. Shout out via an interpreter for the cowards to come out and fight. Mano-e-mano. At first they would, and his squad would kill them. Word got around about that.

    When he returned, he was offered a $100,oooK plus position via the Pentagon. They wanted him to train special OPs teams, because they told him that is the direction the military is headed. He felt the effort in Afghanistan was a total waste, that once they left everything would return to exactly as it was. It appears the military has come to agree. Large ground invasions and occupations to be a thing of the past.

    Rather, it will be a two fold combination. Massive air power. Specific Special OPs hit squads to take out specific people and targets. That combination more effective - in results - and more cost efficient too.

    He declined the offer nor re-enlisted. BTW, his squad did not suffer one casualty. They killed many of "the enemy."

    There will always be a need for some infantry. But modern war outcomes wouldn't be decided by the infantry. It is just one element of a much, much bigger picture. The ability to carry a 100 pound pack mile after mile, day after day, might apply to maybe 10%, probably less, of our land military forces. Setting all standards around that 10% is nonsensical.
    Last edited by joko104; 11-26-13 at 06:14 PM.

  5. #145
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    Re: Marine Corp Delays Pull-Up Requirement for Female Marines

    Quote Originally Posted by ItAin'tFree View Post
    Who said that? besides you?
    Please, that's the insinuation that you and others have made. That women are too "distracting" or that the men can't control themselves. It's retarded.

  6. #146
    Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    11-30-13 @ 07:05 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,293

    Re: Marine Corp Delays Pull-Up Requirement for Female Marines

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    Give me a break. It's not like they can't get a replacement. Pregnancy is a temporary situation and not always avoidable, especially if you're a married person.
    Nobody said they couldn't get a replacement. But they may not get one when they need it and won't get one that is 100% ready from the get go to help said unit complete it's mission. That takes time.
    "“If we don’t deepen our ports all along the Gulf — places like Charleston, South Carolina; or Savannah, Georgia; or Jacksonville, Florida…” -Obama

  7. #147
    Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    11-30-13 @ 07:05 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,293

    Re: Marine Corp Delays Pull-Up Requirement for Female Marines

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    Please, that's the insinuation that you and others have made. That women are too "distracting" or that the men can't control themselves. It's retarded.
    I never said such and never implied such. But I did state things in realistic terms.
    "“If we don’t deepen our ports all along the Gulf — places like Charleston, South Carolina; or Savannah, Georgia; or Jacksonville, Florida…” -Obama

  8. #148
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 03:32 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Marine Corp Delays Pull-Up Requirement for Female Marines

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    Holy ****ing ****. Are you serious right now? Show me one time where I said "no woman could do what I did as a grunt!" You realize we're talking about women joining combat arms right?

    Basically, you stuck your dick out and made a bunch of highly misinformed statements about physical fitness being irrelevant in modern combat, and I corrected you. You claimed there were no examples where lack of physical fitness could get anyone killed, so I gave you one. Tell me why women should not be held to the same physical standards as men.

    Secondly, it was a 15 month deployment, so I have no idea what you're talking about with "weeks", nor do I have any idea what you mean about me flying an F-35B. If that was the job I was shooting for, I would make sure I met the ****ing standards, and didn't try to get in by doing far less than my colleagues.

    It is highly unpleasant talking to you, especially when you go off on such random ****ing tangents after I corrected you. I've stated from the beginning that women should have to meet the same standards as men for the same job. That is equality. If you'd like to explain to me why they should get a free pass, please do.
    Once again, you have an antiquated view of what "combat arms" is limited to meaning. You are claiming "physical ability" is relevant to 100% of everyone in any "combat" role. AND you limit physical ability to muscularity. I'm saying it's not, because that ceased to be the only definition of "combat role" a long time ago.

    For example, Russians found that women actually make better snipers.

    What I said, BTW, is that you nor anyone has given one example - ever - of women in a combat role has ever got anyone killed. If that would happen, why hasn't it? You just keep claiming it will - because you say so.

    It isn't as if women in combat roles is an unknown. But for women in combat roles, Stalingrad would have fallen and that would have altered the entire war. I provided a "proof" of women being effective - as in DEADLY - in combat roles. You can not give even ONE example where they have not been nor ONE example where a woman in a combat role got "someone killed."

    Believe it or not, the entire military isn't designed around guys "going over the wire."
    Last edited by joko104; 11-26-13 at 06:32 PM.

  9. #149
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,563

    Re: Marine Corp Delays Pull-Up Requirement for Female Marines

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    Once again, you have an antiquated view of what "combat arms" is limited to meaning. You are claiming "physical ability" is relevant to 100% of everyone in any "combat" role. AND you limit physical ability to muscularity. I'm saying it's not, because that ceased to be the only definition of "combat role" a long time ago.

    For example, Russians found that women actually make better snipers.

    What I said, BTW, is that you nor anyone has given one example - ever - of women in a combat role has ever got anyone killed. If that would happen, why hasn't it? You just keep claiming it will - because you say so.

    It isn't as if women in combat roles is an unknown. But for women in combat roles, Stalingrad would have fallen and that would have altered the entire war. I provided a "proof" of women being effective - as in DEADLY - in combat roles. You can not give even ONE example where they have not been nor ONE example where a woman in a combat role got "someone killed."

    Believe it or not, the entire military isn't designed around guys "going over the wire."
    Wtf.. You realize the women in question are joining the infantry right? Why do you have such a low opinion of women that you believe they could never pass the minimal male standards?

    You dont seem to have any desire for equality whatsoever. You want two teammates to be held to massively different standards.

    Have you ever spent a single day in the military or combat arms? Because everything youve said has been pulled directly out of your ass.
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.

  10. #150
    Guru

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    4,940

    Re: Marine Corp Delays Pull-Up Requirement for Female Marines

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    My view of the Marines in combat comes from a former Marine who was a small squad leader for which his team was the first squad to go on foot securing village after village thru the Hellman District of Afghanistan all the way to the Pakistan border and back - that was the most remote and dangerous in the war. His relatives literally saw the Marines as having put him as a troublemaker in boot camp as head of a small squad of boot camp troublemakers on a virtual suicide mission to teach him and them a lesson.

    He had volunteered specifically because he wanted the life experience of being a soldier killing the enemy. He enlisted to obtain that goal - the goal of hunting people in the context of war. He had hunted every other kind of animal before this. It wasn't for God and country. He was open to everyone why he was joining the Marines. Not a big guy, but state wrestling champ. Been hunting from the farm he grew on since a child. It was to experience being a soldier killing the enemy. To hunt humans in that context. He wanted to, as a soldier, hunt people. People who also were soldiers, so it a "fair" fight. Like hunting deer on their turf, where the deer get to shoot back.

    In boot camp he defied his immediate CO in war exercises, claiming if he followed the CO's commands he would get his squad killed - so he wouldn't do it since the exercises were supposed to be real. In response, then they made him and a few other "won't do it" newbies play the role of the insurgents. The punishment didn't work. He and his squad not only would repel the Marines in exercises, he even pulled off the unthinkable - capturing a Marine and dragging him away - literally beating that Marine into submission and dragging him off - since it is suppose to be done as if "real." The absolute last thing our military wants is insurgents to capture a live soldier, and he and his small squad of boot camp enlistees playing as insurgents had done it.

    So they sent him and that little squad to Afghanistan in the Hellman District, giving the order for them to go West to the Pakistan border, which is exactly what his squad did. This is what he wanted, to HUNT "the enemy." So, the entire time he was there, he and his little squad trekked across and around that district, absolutely not wanting any support, and with the heaviest weapon they had being 1 full auto - hunting and killing insurgents (or "the outsiders" as he called them). In the end, he said became boring. Word was preceding them and all potential targets would "run far away and hide." No artillery or air support. Just a small group of "hunters" with their hunting rifles - so to speak.

    That no one was willing to even try to lay in ambush over - and they weren't sneaking around. They would camp in the open. Shout out via an interpreter for the cowards to come out and fight. Mano-e-mano. At first they would, and his squad would kill them. Word got around about that.

    When he returned, he was offered a $100,oooK plus position via the Pentagon. They wanted him to train special OPs teams, because they told him that is the direction the military is headed. He felt the effort in Afghanistan was a total waste, that once they left everything would return to exactly as it was. It appears the military has come to agree. Large ground invasions and occupations to be a thing of the past.

    Rather, it will be a two fold combination. Massive air power. Specific Special OPs hit squads to take out specific people and targets. That combination more effective - in results - and more cost efficient too.

    He declined the offer nor re-enlisted. BTW, his squad did not suffer one casualty. They killed many of "the enemy."

    There will always be a need for some infantry. But modern war outcomes wouldn't be decided by the infantry. It is just one element of a much, much bigger picture. The ability to carry a 100 pound pack mile after mile, day after day, might apply to maybe 10%, probably less, of our land military forces. Setting all standards around that 10% is nonsensical.
    The very fact that you would type this complete nonsense is 100% proof that you have no idea whatsoever on how the military works. I don't know if you just made this up or you really believe this big of a bs story that someone told you but either way the fact that you believe it should be proof to anyone who reads it that you are clueless about the military and nothing you say should be looked at as coming from a place of knowledge.

    I was going to go through the whole thing and point out the utter nonsense one by one but it is just so far out there I don't even know where to start

Page 15 of 52 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •