• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Marine Corp Delays Pull-Up Requirement for Female Marines

ChrisL said:
Quit your lying.
Click to expand...

:lol: my lying? Everyone who comes in here who is a vet and is telling you about their personal experience is lying to you, and you make this claim on.... what evidence, again?
 
[

ChrisL said:
What happens in the real world? Basically what you are saying is that it would be expected of the men and women in the unit to be having sexual relations just because of the fact that they are men and women? That is utterly ridiculous.

This is not something that is happening all the time or even OFTEN relatively speaking, so you are full of it. MOST men and women are perfectly capable of self control in such situations. Those who cannot control themselves, should be disciplined and perhaps dishonorably discharged.
Click to expand...

So what are you basing you saying people are not having sex often on. Is it your experience in the military or what you want to be true because it supports your agenda
 
braindrain said:
ChrisL said:
Today 12:18 PM

What happens in the real world? Basically what you are saying is that it would be expected of the men and women in the unit to be having sexual relations just because of the fact that they are men and women? That is utterly ridiculous.

This is not something that is happening all the time or even OFTEN relatively speaking, so you are full of it. MOST men and women are perfectly capable of self control in such situations. Those who cannot control themselves, should be disciplined and perhaps dishonorably discharged.

What are you basing that men and women are not having sex often on. Is it you experience in the military or what you want to be true
Click to expand...

She has no experience in the military - which apparently doesn't stop her from claiming that she knows more about it than those of us who do.
 
Just to re-iterate we have a slew of Infantry qualified and combat veterans here stating that that based on what they have experienced and witnessed women in general do not have what it takes to make it in the Infantry without reducing overall combat effectiveness of the units.

I'm not sure how many of you guys are/were instructors but I have trained thousands of soldiers and have seen first hand that the majority of women struggle at Infantry specific tasks (recent females going through Infantry school in the Marine Corps also indicate this)

A few civilians have rebutted with pseudo science. One quote was that they are better snipers.
Of the best snipers in modern history exactly one out of ten is a female
Top 10 Snipers in History - Listverse

NO ONEis saying women do not bring something to the table in the military, however Infantry and Special Forces is not an area that they excel at or could be integrated without reducing combat effectiveness of those units.
 
Last edited:
Paratrooper said:
Just to re-iterate we have a slew of Infantry qualified and combat veterans here stating that that based on what they have experienced and witnessed women in general do not have what it takes to make it in the Infantry without reducing overall combat effectiveness of the units.

I'm not sure how many of you guys are/were instructors but I have trained thousands of soldiers and have seen first hand that the majority of women struggle at Infantry specific tasks.

A few civilians have rebutted with pseudo science. One quote was that they are better snipers.
Of the best snipers in modern history exactly one out of ten is a female
Top 10 Snipers in History - Listverse

NO ONEis saying women do not bring something to the table in the military, however Infantry and Special Forces is not an area that they excel at or could be integrated without reducing combat effectiveness of those units.
Click to expand...

Pshaw. Obviously you are lying. One of Joko's friends watched "The Marine", like, a million times, so, he pretty much knows way better than you what modern combat and its demands are like.
 
Read through all the posts here, and it simply boils down to equal standards or special treatment, right?

There may be no right or wrong opinion, but it can't be both simultaneously.
 
cpwill said:
Naturally they are - no one is denying it. And if a man wanted to be in the infantry, and he was a detraction, he wouldn't have the right to demand that "that's what he wants" either. The military does not give you what you want - the military tells you to do what it needs you to do. It's not like any other job. It's not like your job. :) It's a dictatorship. What you want is irrelevant. If you have a decent chain of command they may try to accommodate (they don't have to, but they might) it, but the instant that your want detracts at all from unit readiness, combat efficiency, or the needs of the military, it ceases to matter.



I have no problem with women contributing their time or risking their life to protect their country - women are probably actually physically situated to make better pilots (lower center of gravity), and I've served with women (see above) who were fantastic Marines, and supremely competent at their jobs.

But I am someone who has the experience to know that putting women in the infantry will reduce their combat effectiveness. Again, this isn't about the wants, desires, dreams, or even (within some limits) the rights of the individual. Combat is a team sport. We have, in our history, fought cultures who forgot that. Usually the kill ratios are very lopsided.



No. Because the introduction of sexual tension and the drama that comes with it into the infantry is a distraction they cannot afford. Horny is pretty much a constant state of being for an 18-22 year old male on deployment. There is no "getting" sex-deprived, you just are. You are on deployment. :shrug:

Until they send out the Lioness teams. And that's when every single male Marine in a company of 190(ish) figures he has a 1/40 chance of finally getting laid, and those who think they can win (which, again, the infantry is self-selecting for aggressive, alpha-typologies, and are then trained to think that they are pretty much awesome) those odds, go for it.... distracting from the mission, ruining their focus, creating competition, creating cliques, destroying team cohesion, and degrading combat efficiency.


It is not fair to ask men to put at risk their lives in because women want to play GI Jane. If you disagree with that relative valuation - again, we have a civilian governed military and we will do what we are told. But you at least owe us a recognition of the trade-off that you are telling us to make.
Click to expand...

I'll ask you the same question. Can you name one incident when women in combat has caused one of our troops to be killed - since that is the incessant claim?
 
cpwill said:
Pshaw. Obviously you are lying. One of Joko's friends watched "The Marine", like, a million times, so, he pretty much knows way better than you what modern combat and its demands are like.
Click to expand...

Was there a show called "The Marine?" What the hell are you talking about? I told the story of one Marine I know who was a squad leader in Afghanistan, and his view of the future of the American military as he was told it. While extremely effective in what he was assigned to do, he believed it a complete waste producing no permanent benefit. It was not a direct comment about women in the military. It was the obvious that military tactics for the future have to change. They always do.

If the enemy are locals and they take off their uniforms, the entire definition of war changes.
 
Paratrooper said:
Just to re-iterate we have a slew of Infantry qualified and combat veterans here stating that that based on what they have experienced and witnessed women in general do not have what it takes to make it in the Infantry without reducing overall combat effectiveness of the units.

I'm not sure how many of you guys are/were instructors but I have trained thousands of soldiers and have seen first hand that the majority of women struggle at Infantry specific tasks (recent females going through Infantry school in the Marine Corps also indicate this)

A few civilians have rebutted with pseudo science. One quote was that they are better snipers.
Of the best snipers in modern history exactly one out of ten is a female
Top 10 Snipers in History - Listverse

NO ONEis saying women do not bring something to the table in the military, however Infantry and Special Forces is not an area that they excel at or could be integrated without reducing combat effectiveness of those units.
Click to expand...

There are special forces operations potential situations where women could be suited and men would not. Per your example, there are situations where a female team could better infiltrate to get into a sniper position for a critical target.

I respect your opinion. But I also believe the military serves many roles and that military service has many effects. Among those includes after service effects. How socially functional are ex-service members? While that is a more complex issue of course, I ponder if having young men withdrawn from interactions with women at levels of equality (and even where women can be superiors) for 2, 3, 4+ years does not cause a socially crippling effect for SOME men. It is possible women serving along with men could have an empathy effect that may offset the huge levels of various destructive stress syndromes and even levels of suicide within and after military service.

Even the Infantry is not just a question of taking and holding territory and seeking out to destroy the enemy. The are much broader questions - unless you truly don't care what becomes of those who service in the military before and after service.

There also becomes a them-us between civilians and the those in the military. In civil society, there is increasing public (and voter) opposition to ground troops being put into action. Poll after poll shows women FAR more in opposition to putting American troops on the ground. And more women vote than men. Unless the military is seen in a favorable light by the American public - which over 50% means women - it won't matter what the Infantry is capable of doing - because they won't be allowed to do it. It is the vested interest of the military and our nation that women - not just men - have a connect to our military forces.

My "beef" isn't that there are situational circumstances where mixed units would be unwise or problematical. It is the over-simplification of one-liners such as "women in combat will get people killed!" and that women are inherently incapable of being on-the-ground warriors. A more challenging and complex question is the greater question of the relationship between the military, military service, the civilian population and civilian political leadership.

In a democratic society, the military cannot become TOO "politically incorrect" (the terminology many are using) and still be fully viable and deployable. In a totalitarian society it would not matter. But in a democratic society what the public thinks of the military can be decisive. We just saw that in the matter concerning Syria in which the public overwhelmingly shouted "NO!" to ANY military involvement and that was even with declaring no plan to deploy ground troops. In addition to other concerns, was a fear this would lead to troops on the ground. What good is an Infantry if political forces prevent it from being able to be used? Or to HAVE to commit to a military conflict promising under no eventuality will any ground troops be deployed? That's crippling.

The public, ie including women, SEEING women in uniform AND in combat roles would go a LONG way towards favorable support of the military and military deployments. Put as simple as possible, if women do not support usage of the Infantry as a political matter, the Infantry is impotent. And that alone severely harms our nation's foreign policy. The greatest power of the American military - and best usage of it - is FEAR of the American military coming their way. If they believe that American political will won't allow it, that fear-factor is lost.

And thank you for acknowledging that women do have a place and more than as mere tokens in terms of killing-ability in a military context.
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
There are special forces operations potential situations where women could be suited and men would not. Per your example, there are situations where a female team could better infiltrate to get into a sniper position for a critical target.

I respect your opinion. But I also believe the military serves many roles and that military service has many effects. Among those includes after service effects. How socially functional are ex-service members? While that is a more complex issue of course, I ponder if having young men withdrawn from interactions with women at levels of equality (and even where women can be superiors) for 2, 3, 4+ years does not cause a socially crippling effect for SOME men. It is possible women serving along with men could have an empathy effect that may offset the huge levels of various destructive stress syndromes and even levels of suicide within and after military service.

Even the Infantry is not just a question of taking and holding territory and seeking out to destroy the enemy. The are much broader questions - unless you truly don't care what becomes of those who service in the military before and after service.

There also becomes a them-us between civilians and the those in the military. In civil society, there is increasing public (and voter) opposition to ground troops being put into action. Poll after poll shows women FAR more in opposition to putting American troops on the ground. And more women vote than men. Unless the military is seen in a favorable light by the American public - which over 50% means women - it won't matter what the Infantry is capable of doing - because they won't be allowed to do it. It is the vested interest of the military and our nation that women - not just men - have a connect to our military forces.

My "beef" isn't that there are situational circumstances where mixed units would be unwise or problematical. It is the over-simplification of one-liners such as "women in combat will get people killed!" and that women are inherently incapable of being on-the-ground warriors. A more challenging and complex question is the greater question of the relationship between the military, military service, the civilian population and civilian political leadership.

In a democratic society, the military cannot become TOO "politically incorrect" (the terminology many are using) and still be fully viable and deployable. In a totalitarian society it would not matter. But in a democratic society what the public thinks of the military can be decisive. We just saw that in the matter concerning Syria in which the public overwhelmingly shouted "NO!" to ANY military involvement and that was even with declaring no plan to deploy ground troops. In addition to other concerns, was a fear this would lead to troops on the ground. What good is an Infantry if political forces prevent it from being able to be used? Or to HAVE to commit to a military conflict promising under no eventuality will any ground troops be deployed? That's crippling.

The public, ie including women, SEEING women in uniform AND in combat roles would go a LONG way towards favorable support of the military and military deployments. Put as simple as possible, if women do not support usage of the Infantry as a political matter, the Infantry is impotent. And that alone severely harms our nation's foreign policy. The greatest power of the American military - and best usage of it - is FEAR of the American military coming their way. If they believe that American political will won't allow it, that fear-factor is lost.

And thank you for acknowledging that women do have a place and more than as mere tokens in terms of killing-ability in a military context.
Click to expand...

There is allot more to being a sniper than simply sitting on a ridge and patiently waiting for your shot. In Iraq for example snipers were set up in urban environments and and "a safe distance from the action" can turn into a close quarters battle quickly.

It is not just our opinion that women in general do not perform well in combat arms, it has been tested and consistently proven. In every situation that has been tested (recently with marine infantry training) women have fallen out or become injured in significant numbers. It is about budget and efficiency. It is not efficient to run a program where you have a 80% or greater injury/fallout rate (with the exception of elite groups where you simply must have the best of the best in these cases the standard will consistently get tougher because you can only take on a limited number and you always want to choose the best.)

There are already positions where women can engage and be engaged in combat, Military Police, Female Engagement Teams (even support units since we really don't have "front lines" anymore ).

It is the specific tasks and missions of Infantry and Special Operations that make them different.
Manning a .50 mounted on a MRAP, or working a guard tower, or an ECP is not the same as patrolling through the Afghan mountains, conducting complex attacks on enemy forces, doing a HVT kill/capture mission etc.
 
joko104 said:
Was there a show called "The Marine?" What the hell are you talking about? I told the story of one Marine I know who was a squad leader in Afghanistan, and his view of the future of the American military as he was told it. While extremely effective in what he was assigned to do, he believed it a complete waste producing no permanent benefit. It was not a direct comment about women in the military. It was the obvious that military tactics for the future have to change. They always do.

If the enemy are locals and they take off their uniforms, the entire definition of war changes.
Click to expand...

That STORY that you told was such utter BS that if you actually believe it than anything else you say about the military should be ignored by everyone because you obviously have no idea about how the military functions. I can gaurantee 100% that almost nothing in that story actually happened. If you would like I can go back through it and point out the bs or you can just believe me. Just let me know
 
joko104 said:
There are special forces operations potential situations where women could be suited and men would not. Per your example, there are situations where a female team could better infiltrate to get into a sniper position for a critical target.

I respect your opinion. But I also believe the military serves many roles and that military service has many effects. Among those includes after service effects. How socially functional are ex-service members? While that is a more complex issue of course, I ponder if having young men withdrawn from interactions with women at levels of equality (and even where women can be superiors) for 2, 3, 4+ years does not cause a socially crippling effect for SOME men. It is possible women serving along with men could have an empathy effect that may offset the huge levels of various destructive stress syndromes and even levels of suicide within and after military service.

Even the Infantry is not just a question of taking and holding territory and seeking out to destroy the enemy. The are much broader questions - unless you truly don't care what becomes of those who service in the military before and after service.

There also becomes a them-us between civilians and the those in the military. In civil society, there is increasing public (and voter) opposition to ground troops being put into action. Poll after poll shows women FAR more in opposition to putting American troops on the ground. And more women vote than men. Unless the military is seen in a favorable light by the American public - which over 50% means women - it won't matter what the Infantry is capable of doing - because they won't be allowed to do it. It is the vested interest of the military and our nation that women - not just men - have a connect to our military forces.

My "beef" isn't that there are situational circumstances where mixed units would be unwise or problematical. It is the over-simplification of one-liners such as "women in combat will get people killed!" and that women are inherently incapable of being on-the-ground warriors. A more challenging and complex question is the greater question of the relationship between the military, military service, the civilian population and civilian political leadership.

In a democratic society, the military cannot become TOO "politically incorrect" (the terminology many are using) and still be fully viable and deployable. In a totalitarian society it would not matter. But in a democratic society what the public thinks of the military can be decisive. We just saw that in the matter concerning Syria in which the public overwhelmingly shouted "NO!" to ANY military involvement and that was even with declaring no plan to deploy ground troops. In addition to other concerns, was a fear this would lead to troops on the ground. What good is an Infantry if political forces prevent it from being able to be used? Or to HAVE to commit to a military conflict promising under no eventuality will any ground troops be deployed? That's crippling.

The public, ie including women, SEEING women in uniform AND in combat roles would go a LONG way towards favorable support of the military and military deployments. Put as simple as possible, if women do not support usage of the Infantry as a political matter, the Infantry is impotent. And that alone severely harms our nation's foreign policy. The greatest power of the American military - and best usage of it - is FEAR of the American military coming their way. If they believe that American political will won't allow it, that fear-factor is lost.

And thank you for acknowledging that women do have a place and more than as mere tokens in terms of killing-ability in a military context.
Click to expand...

I'm all for women in all females combat arms units, that have to meet the same standards as males in male units.
 
apdst said:
I'm all for women in all females combat arms units, that have to meet the same standards as males in male units.
Click to expand...

:agree: Better that than feminizing our military! Being a gal, I'm for all female units. Lots of good thriller books written lately on that subject!

Happy Thanksgiving, apdst! :2wave:
 
polgara said:
:agree: Better that than feminizing our military! Being a gal, I'm for all female units. Lots of good thriller books written lately on that subject!

Happy Thanksgiving, apdst! :2wave:
Click to expand...

Happy Thanksgiving!

People are already getting on my nerves here at my house...lol!
 
joko104 said:
Let me guess. You don't have much of a college degree, but you played sports in school. Did I guess right?

Of course, being how easy school is, certainly you should have at least 1 PhD. Do you?
Click to expand...


LOL.

With each post you make, you even have people with just a tiny understanding of the military rolling with laughter.

I'll quote myself here: "being in a controlled school environment is the absolutely easiest time a person spends in the military".

LOL. You have no clue dude. The schools I referenced are schools such as The "Infantry School", The "Armor School" and so on.

Do you really enjoy proving you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about? Or do you feel compelled to do such to prove you are loyal to the idiots of the Democrat party?
 
apdst said:
I'm all for women in all females combat arms units, that have to meet the same standards as males in male units.
Click to expand...

They will never be required to meet the same standards in a combat arms unit. They don't even have to do that in any other branch already. However, these clowns pushing for females in combat arms units would never admit that. The truth has no place in the democrat party. None.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
In truth - I think many men go through most of their military careers with injuries and never reported them. But we hacked that up in another thread not too long ago so I won't bother here, no point.
Click to expand...
Most definitely. I'm doing it right now lol
 
ChrisL said:
Here's an interesting link I found regarding women in Israel and combat service.

Israeli Army Women | Service Options
Click to expand...

ChrisL said:
Obviously, the military considers them to be active in combat units, and they are referred to as such.

Another interesting piece of info for you.
Click to expand...

Two things:

A) The "combat roles" filled by women in the Israeli military aren't really combat roles. As a matter of fact, many women are already serving in those same positions (military police, gate and border guards, intelligence, etca) in the United States military.

Female infantry and special forces have so far not been at the forefront of any major military operation staged by the Israeli military. They have been in support, just as they are in our own military.

B) The Israelis stopped using female soldiers after 1948 precisely because the concept didn't really work. They weren't as combat effective as men, and the interpersonal dynamic they introduced to fighting units tended to cause problems with morale, good order, and discipline.

The mixed gender infantry model was ultimately more trouble than it was worth, so the concept was abandoned.

ChrisL said:
Post a link. Why should I believe your claims?
Click to expand...

Because they're true? :lol:

The most "hardcore" thing I ever saw for sale when I was overseas was Sports Illustrated and Maxim. It didn't really matter all that much, as we mostly used illicitly acquired digital porn instead anyway, but his claims are accurate.

ChrisL said:
Until you can show PROOF of where soldiers were killed specifically because of a female soldier, then your argument is nonsensical.
Click to expand...

Sort of hard to prove a negative, given how there aren't any actual female soldiers serving in front line combat roles. :roll:

That being said, however; I can provide at least one example of a female soldier doing nothing to help her unit during combat. Jessica Lynch, for instance, was captured by Iraqi forces without having ever fired her weapon to try and defend herself.

ChrisL said:
The links I posted clearly state that the IDF is planning on expanding their use of women in combat forces because it's worked out very well for them. :) That must piss you guys off to no END! Lol!
Click to expand...

What it actually shows is exactly the same thing that is going on in our own military at the moment. The "politically correct" powers that be want an "equal opportunity" military, so they are doing everything in their power to force the issue regardless of whether women are up to the task or not.

Again, female soldiers in the Israeli military have never taken part in a major frontline operation. They are being hailed as being "combat capable" when the reality of the situation is that they've never been tested in wartime combat.

ChrisL said:
I didn't see you quote any part that says women are "not allowed." Being sent to a border to protect it in a place like Israel, regardless of WHICH border, is being sent into a combat situation. Combat could erupt at any time, and these women are fully trained and ready for that.
Click to expand...

By that logic, women are already serving in "combat roles" in the US military by the simple act of ever being required to go off base in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan.

The problem here is that you're confusing your definitions. Being in a job which might lead a person to come under fire and defend themselves, is not the same thing as being in a job which leads them to directly seek out enemy forces in an aggressive fashion and close with them in close quarters combat afterwards.

The one only requires that a person survive contact with the enemy long enough to live another day. The other requires that they win.

Sitting guard duty and occasionally taking a pot shot at someone is not the same thing as trekking 30 miles a day with a heavy ruck or kicking down doors with the expectation of coming face to face with the enemy.

I'm sorry, but the simple fact of the matter is that women so far have not demonstrated their ability to perform in this latter capacity in any meaningful fashion.
 
Last edited:
Paratrooper said:
There is allot more to being a sniper than simply sitting on a ridge and patiently waiting for your shot. In Iraq for example snipers were set up in urban environments and and "a safe distance from the action" can turn into a close quarters battle quickly.

It is not just our opinion that women in general do not perform well in combat arms, it has been tested and consistently proven. In every situation that has been tested (recently with marine infantry training) women have fallen out or become injured in significant numbers. It is about budget and efficiency. It is not efficient to run a program where you have a 80% or greater injury/fallout rate (with the exception of elite groups where you simply must have the best of the best in these cases the standard will consistently get tougher because you can only take on a limited number and you always want to choose the best.)

There are already positions where women can engage and be engaged in combat, Military Police, Female Engagement Teams (even support units since we really don't have "front lines" anymore ).

It is the specific tasks and missions of Infantry and Special Operations that make them different.
Manning a .50 mounted on a MRAP, or working a guard tower, or an ECP is not the same as patrolling through the Afghan mountains, conducting complex attacks on enemy forces, doing a HVT kill/capture mission etc.
Click to expand...
Great points. And to amplify your points, I think the general public is losing sight of what combat CAN be vice what it HAS been in the past two theaters. The media, some politicians, and advocates in general will lead the public to believe that combat is simply riding in a turret or walking around a town engaging the local populace to gain intel. Well, I hate to tell everyone, but that isn't combat. That is a Counter Insurgency (COIN) environment. Sure, actual combat occurs in these theaters. But there are very few women that have gone out actively searching for an engagement with the enemy in the manner in which infantrymen do. And it doesn't matter which service we're talking about. The last time we executed large scale, full fledged combat was the 2003 Iraq invasion. As easy as that combat was (for the most part), I can tell you right now there are VERY few females that could have kept up with the pace the infantry were keeping during that operation. I lost over 40lbs in 3 months over there and was really struggling to keep up with how fast operations were moving towards the end. I'm not a weak guy either. Find me a female that can lose 40lbs in 3 months and even have a body left to hang a pack on!

Further, I am so sick of hearing about these "Crossfit chicks" that everyone says could make it in the infantry. Sure they could.....for a week. Then they would go to the field to train and they wouldn't get their friggin protein smoothy for a snack or 5 chicken breast, serving of broccoli lunch everyday. They wouldn't be able to workout anymore because they are doing company live fire ranges. They wouldn't be able to get their 8 hours of sleep their body needs to recover because the company is in a 50/50 watch rotation that night. It doesn't take long for the body to break down and revert to what it is naturally capable of. And the vast friggin majority of women just don't naturally have the strength to keep that sort of regimen.
 
Last edited:
Dragonfly said:
If you don't like that way Ford builds it's pickup trucks these days, don't buy one.

If you don't like the direction the US Military is heading. Don't sign up.

Both are 100% voluntary.

Don't like it, don't volunteer for it.

Simple as that.
Click to expand...

Until we get out asses royally handed to us in a war because generations of disinterested politicians have been using our armed forces as a testing ground for nonsense experiments in "social engineering" rather than actual warfare, that is. :roll:

Do you remember how the incompetence of military and political leaders during World War 1 was said to have resulted in the deaths of an "entire generation of young men?" How would you like to see something like happen again, but only to both genders in our society this time?

But hey! As long as every dies "equally" and the feminists get to wave their pathetic little victory flag, I guess it's alright. Amirite?
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
What war were you in that we won? Why do you think you are smarter than our military and civil command?
Click to expand...

Frankly, a brain dead Chimpanzee slumped over a typewriter could make smarter decisions than our "civil command" when it comes to matters of military doctrine. Their area of expertise lies in looking pretty on television and bull****ting their way around overblown ideological disputes in a largely irrational and incompetent manner, not winning wars.

The supposed opinions of our "military command" on this issue are irrelevant, as they are ultimately forced to comply with the directives given to them by the civil variety or risk losing their jobs.

Allowing petty politics to become more important than practical results or personal competency is dangerous in any profession. It is potentially deadly in the military.
 
Last edited:
Gathomas88 said:
Frankly, a brain dead Chimpanzee slumped over a typewriter could make smarter decisions than our "civil command" when it comes to matters of military doctrine. Their area of expertise lies in looking pretty on television and bull****ting their way around petty ideological disputes in a largely incompetent manner, not winning wars.

Military command is irrelevant, as they are forced to comply with the directives given to them by the civil variety.
Click to expand...

Like I said, a bitter grunt who hates democracy and could never be in command incapable of following orders because thinks he's a Napoleon. It is your attitude that is what gets our troops killed. Incapable of accepting necessary change and thinks throwing men at the machine guns is how to win a war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom