• 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

joko104 said:
He was in for, I think, 3 years. He wanted his parents to sign off enlistment at 17, explaining that would allow only 2. They refused - and they won't do a physical at age 17 meaning he could not contract/enlist at that age, I would guess it was 3. Whether it was straight out of boot camp or not, I dunno. You do - if you know anything at all - know an enlistment would be at least 2 years and likely 3 during the Afghan war. I am inclined not to believe that.

Therefore you must be claiming a person could not become a CPL or SGT in the Marines within 3 years during the Afghanistan war. He probably told me his rank, but I don't remember. Next time I talk to him I'll ask for more details - to give more specifics some of you can ridicule hot combat zone Marines over claiming they didn't exist or such.
Click to expand...

You said he was in charge of a squad right out of basic not 3 years latter. Ther is a ton more to running ops other than shooting or ( hunting ). Unsexy things like mission planning and op orders or conops. Not things you learn in basic but things you will not leave the wire without
 
braindrain said:
Can you please show me where anyone said anyone was outside the wire for weeks with no support supply or medevac cause I missed that. Thanks
Click to expand...

Don't remember the member and don't care to look. Chris has explained if a female combat member became pregnant, she would simply be replaced. The response of one member was the he was "over the wire" "for weeks" and it would therefore be impossible to replace her or evacuate. her. There is no reason to search it as on these topics facts don't matter in the sense that no one ever changes their position. It's not worth the time.
 
braindrain said:
Well guess what weather it is auto or burst doesn't really matter because neither one of those two things are semi auto as you said he carried.
I really couldn't care less if you beleive me or not. But just to make it interesting if I prove that I am how about you admitting you are full of it and stop talking about things you don't know about. What say you
Click to expand...


Thanks for wasting my time with another false message. I looked up the weapons Marines carried.

This included the M16A4 - which is NOT full auto, though does allow 3 round burst. A 3 round burst is NOT FULL auto - so were just outright WRONG. The Marines also use the SAM-R, which is semi-auto. They are also issued the DMR M40A1 & M40A3 Sniper Rifles M82A1A & M82A3 & M107 Sniper Rifles - not full autos.

You're just another person claiming to know everything and sneering facts that are just outright false. You claim that Marines only have full autos and that Marines never have semi-autos is just false, false, false. I felt I was wasting my time checking but did. Any more false facts you want to post sneeringly as truisms?

So we now have our "knowledgeable" veterans declaring that military rifles are incapable of being used as hunting rifles and Marines never have semi-auto rifles. :roll: You guys are a real trip, you know that? :lol:

Clearly, the Marines aren't the Army nor National Guard, nor visa versa. You guys I guess don't recognize that?
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
Don't remember the member and don't care to look. Chris has explained if a female combat member became pregnant, she would simply be replaced. The response of one member was the he was "over the wire" "for weeks" and it would therefore be impossible to replace her or evacuate. her. There is no reason to search it as on these topics facts don't matter in the sense that no one ever changes their position. It's not worth the time.
Click to expand...

They couldn't replace her because that is not how the military works. For the most part the military deploys as units. So if you were not part of the unit when it deploys it is unlikely you will deploy. For the most part the military doesn't do the individual replacement thing like they did in nam
 
In the extreme desire to personally bring me down, you guys are contradicting everything you wrote about men in the military versus women. Do you grasp that? You are claiming the male soldiers and Marines you insist upon don't exist, can't exist, nor does the military need nor care. That's common on DP. People totally contradicting themselves due to personal conflict on an issue with another member.
 
braindrain said:
They couldn't replace her because that is not how the military works. For the most part the military deploys as units. So if you were not part of the unit when it deploys it is unlikely you will deploy. For the most part the military doesn't do the individual replacement thing like they did in nam
Click to expand...

"Don't" and "can't" are not the same, are they?
 
Going to war without women in combat arms is like going deer hunting without your accordion
 
joko104 said:
Thanks for wasting my time with another false message. I looked up the weapons Marines carried.

This included the M16A4 - which is NOT full auto, though does allow 3 round burst. A 3 round burst is NOT FULL auto - so were just outright WRONG. The Marines also use the SAM-R, which is semi-auto. They are also issued the DMR M40A1 & M40A3 Sniper Rifles M82A1A & M82A3 & M107 Sniper Rifles - not full autos.

You're just another person claiming to know everything and sneering facts that are just outright false. You claim that Marines only have full autos and that Marines never have semi-autos is just false, false, false. I felt I was wasting my time checking but did. Any more false crap you want to post?

So we now have our "knowledgeable" veterans declaring that military rifles are incapable of being used as hunting rifles and Marines never have semi-auto rifles. :roll: You guys are a real trip, you know that? :lol:
Click to expand...

Wow really. You said he carried a semi auto. Burst or auto is not semi auto they are select fire. The rest you listed are sniper rifles which regular infantry squads do not carry. Look up their MTOE. The SAM R uses a standard m16 lower which guess what it is select fire. Let's just say that some how they did come up with one sniper weapon that infantry squads are not issued there is no way they would have more than one. Let's go one more just for fun you let's say they are carrying the 107. You said they were not getting resupplied so just where we're they finding extra 50 cal rounds to replace the ones they were using. I never said Marines don't have semi auto weapons I said a infantry grunt straight out of basic is not being issued a sniper weapon. You seem to think marines just walk into the arms room and just grab whatever weapon they like. Every conventional unit has a break down of what weapons they have available to them and the military doesn't make a habit of giving people things they are not qualified to use and as far as the military is conserned if you don't have formal military training it doesn't count.
You can be the worlds greatest long range shot but if you are not in a duty position that qualifies a sniper gun you are not getting one. you don't seam to realize just how regimented and regulated the military is. A typical mistake of people who have no clue how the military works

So how about that deal. I prove I am a SF Sniper and you admit you are full of it.
 
Last edited:
Like about everyone, I know many people in the military or who were. My daughter is trying to enlist in the Air Force at this time, waiting for the physical. She is not well suited for direct frontline combat. She would be a huge asset to the military, as she is recognized as a huge asset to any organization she involves with and is pushed to the top.

Of all I've known, I've only known one that I would feel fully confident that he and a dozen men like him could be left in any remote area only with what they could carry, and not only survive but be a very effective pro-active aggressive engagement combat unit - and that is the Marine I have written about. No one who knew him doubted he would fly thru boot camp with easy and be exactly what the Marines want and need.

I'm a tough guy. But then that's most my life history my whole life until recently, like it or not. Few men I fear. But if I had to make a run for it thru the massive tracts of natural preserve lands around here, he is the one person I would not want after me. He did basically that his entire life from his childhood. It was his thing, what he did. He's not big nor bulky, but all of him is toughness for his size, skilled and trained. He's smart. I'd put the odd at 90%-10% that he'd hunt me down and kill me. The only reason I put my odds at 10% is because he wouldn't be hunting me down, we'd be hunting each other and I might get lucky.

I fail to grasp - with all the furious claim of male prowlness compared to women - that total disbelief that such young men exist OR that the military - and specifically the Marines - would not spot and use such a man.

IF what is being declared, that the military is like the United Auto Worker's Union for which assignment and advancement is based singularly on seniority and random drawing of names, then the military is totally screwed up. However, I don't believe that is how the military works at all - only that is how it works for average service members who neither excel at anything or fail at anything.

Back on topic, if CPWILL is correct and the military only operates in massive units numbering in the thousands that all stick together at all times? I can see no reason for women not to be in such massed collective "combat" units at all.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Females don't belong in the military anyway.
Click to expand...

Not unless females are forced to serve in all militarys everywhere, just to keep it fair. Maybe quota systems should be put in place before any battle begins.
 
joko104 said:
Like about everyone, I know many people in the military or who were. My daughter is trying to enlist in the Air Force at this time, waiting for the physical. She is not well suited for direct frontline combat. She would be a huge asset to the military, as she is recognized as a huge asset to any organization she involves with and is pushed to the top.

Of all I've known, I've only known one that I would feel fully confident that he and a dozen men like him could be left in any remote area only with what they could carry, and not only survive but be a very effective pro-active aggressive engagement combat unit - and that is the Marine I have written about. No one who knew him doubted he would fly thru boot camp with easy and be exactly what the Marines want and need.

I'm a tough guy. But then that's most my life history my whole life until recently, like it or not. Few men I fear. But if I had to make a run for it thru the massive tracts of natural preserve lands around here, he is the one person I would not want after me. He did basically that his entire life from his childhood. It was his thing, what he did. He's not big nor bulky, but all of him is toughness for his size, skilled and trained. He's smart. I'd put the odd at 90%-10% that he'd hunt me down and kill me. The only reason I put my odds at 10% is because he wouldn't be hunting me down, we'd be hunting each other and I might get lucky.

I fail to grasp - with all the furious claim of male prowlness compared to women - that total disbelief that such young men exist OR that the military - and specifically the Marines - would not spot and use such a man.

IF what is being declared, that the military is like the United Auto Worker's Union for which assignment and advancement is based singularly on seniority and random drawing of names, then the military is totally screwed up. However, I don't believe that is how the military works at all - only that is how it works for average service members who neither excel at anything or fail at anything.

Back on topic, if CPWILL is correct and the military only operates in massive units numbering in the thousands that all stick together at all times? I can see no reason for women not to be in such massed collective "combat" units at all.
Click to expand...


Women have never been in any military in human history until a few years ago. There is a reason for that. Women are a liability in war. A woman's place is not to be running around with a gun. They never have been nor will they ever be trained killers like men. You should discourage your daughter from pursuing that path. She's either going to turn butch, or she'll end up being assaulted.

I can't think of anything more unfeminine than a female soldier. She might as well have a penis.
 
Grant said:
Not unless females are forced to serve in all militarys everywhere, just to keep it fair. Maybe quota systems should be put in place before any battle begins.
Click to expand...

I've only ever seen one good looking female soldier in my life, and I wouldn't date her because that would be like dating a man.
 
joko104 said:
CPWILL says you're a goddamn liar. In his vast experience, he has declared that the military NEVER moved thru remote areas unless at least ONE THOUSAND men did so. So either YOU'RE LYING - or he is just making up crap. I am confident that from what I've been told by those who were there that YOU are who is telling the truth - and CPWILL is full of ****.
Click to expand...

? I don't really care what either of you have to say to be honest, but I'm willing to bet you probably misunderstood him.
I know what my experience was, and we would move in ~23 man recon platoons, and I have personally slept within 300 meters of the Pak border. Just watch the movie Restrepo. A camera crew was embedded within one of the companies in my brigade.

Looking back, CPwill was speaking about one specific operation and you in typical joko fashion ran with it like a dog with a bone.

Also, I have no idea what this has to do with you opposing equality.


CC
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
Like about everyone, I know many people in the military or who were. My daughter is trying to enlist in the Air Force at this time, waiting for the physical. She is not well suited for direct frontline combat. She would be a huge asset to the military, as she is recognized as a huge asset to any organization she involves with and is pushed to the top.That is unless she is in a unit where physical fitness and ability play a very big part of there job. No matter how smart you are if you can't hump to the OBJ than you are useless to the infantry

Of all I've known, I've only known one that I would feel fully confident that he and a dozen men like him could be left in any remote area only with what they could carry, and not only survive but be a very effective pro-active aggressive engagement combat unit - and that is the Marine I have written about. No one who knew him doubted he would fly thru boot camp with easy and be exactly what the Marines want and need. Me and everyone else on my ODA think basic was a joke what is your point

I'm a tough guy. But then that's most my life history my whole life until recently, like it or not. Few men I fear. But if I had to make a run for it thru the massive tracts of natural preserve lands around here, he is the one person I would not want after me. He did basically that his entire life from his childhood. It was his thing, what he did. He's not big nor bulky, but all of him is toughness for his size, skilled and trained. He's smart. I'd put the odd at 90%-10% that he'd hunt me down and kill me. The only reason I put my odds at 10% is because he wouldn't be hunting me down, we'd be hunting each other and I might get lucky.I hate to tell you this but hunting has very very little to do with combat

I fail to grasp - with all the furious claim of male prowlness compared to women - that total disbelief that such young men exist OR that the military - and specifically the Marines - would not spot and use such a man. Here is what you don't seem to get SOF units do not go looking for people. They have more people wanting to join them than they know to do with. You have to go to them

IF what is being declared, that the military is like the United Auto Worker's Union for which assignment and advancement is based singularly on seniority and random drawing of names, then the military is totally screwed up. However, I don't believe that is how the military works at all - only that is how it works for average service members who neither excel at anything or fail at anything. No one is saying promotion is random. What people are saying is that there are requirements to be promoted and a big one of those are time in service which someone straight out of basic. Here is an example for you to be a E7 in the Army no matter what you do or what job you have the minimum time in srevice is 7 years so no matter what you will not make that rank faster than that. The biggest thing you don't seem to understand is that basic training is so very basic and simple that no matter how tough or great a shot you are no one in SOF cares. Every thing in basic is so cut and dry and simple that there is nothing you can do to stand out more than the other top 25% of you company. What are you going to do qualify expert on the qualifying range well who gives a ****. No one in SOF even spends anytime doing regular rifle qualification. The skills that SOF do now are ahead of the regular military so do you really think someone doing well at a level below the regular military is going to impress them

Back on topic, if CPWILL is correct and the military only operates in massive units numbering in the thousands that all stick together at all times? I can see no reason for women not to be in such massed collective "combat" units at all.
Click to expand...

So what about our deal man. Do you want me to prove I am who I say I am to you or not
 
braindrain said:
They couldn't replace her because that is not how the military works. For the most part the military deploys as units. So if you were not part of the unit when it deploys it is unlikely you will deploy. For the most part the military doesn't do the individual replacement thing like they did in nam
Click to expand...

Something he said does go along that lines. He said the US military studied the German military and found that one reason they were so effective in Western Europe was because the unit or squad leader in the German army had a great amount of autonomy in terms of decision power, while the American military was very top-down command dependent. This allowed German units top to bottom to be far more reactive per the immediate circumstance, while the American soldiers had to wait for orders and then follow them, whether they made much sense or not. That would be consistent with the US military now preferring not to just pick replacements but more respect "the unit" or "squad" integrity.

Curiously, defiance of orders in the battlefield itself was more tolerated in the German army than the US military. Even Rommel defied Hitler and was promoted rather punished. That is just my observation.
 
braindrain said:
So what about our deal man. Do you want me to prove I am who I say I am to you or not
Click to expand...

No, not really. The forum doesn't work that way.
 
My daughter is tying to enlist in the Air Force, though talked to the Army too. If she goes into the Air Force, she will go in as an E3 due to college. A 6 year sign up. The Army recruiter was adamant they wanted her to enlist in the officer's program with - if I heard her correctly - a 20 year commitment.
So it's the Air Force or nothing.

She has no interest in the Navy and certainly not the Marines. So it's the Air Force or nothing. Her goal is not a military career. Her goal is to add military service to her overall resume.

Her announcement of pursuing joining the Air Force surprised us.

She is attending a top private university on full scholarship. Her ultimate career goal is to go into environmental law enforcement at a governmental management level. Upon completing her 6 years in the Air Force, which also will give her the bachelor's degree, she then would obtain her master's degree. Since government positions generally give deference to military service as a preference in applicants, she believes this helps her resume' lifelong. However, since she will get a BA out of it anyway, why spend another 2 1/2 years in college and then enlist - which by then she probably would have so much going on in her life she wouldn't want to. She is a person who plans her future - something most young people don't.

I'm not familiar with military rankings.
 
Oh I thought the point of a debate was I say something and than you say something and both of us try to prove the other wrong. You said what I claimed wasn't true. I can very easily prove you wrong that seems to me the point of a debate. Maybe it is you just don't want everyone to know that you are wrong and have no clue what you are talking about. Could that be it.
 
joko104 said:
I think it is offensive that they claim our soldiers, and specifically Marines, are a bunch of gang-rapists for which women are only safe if they are kept away from women. Maybe when Marines are done with their enlistment they should then be locked up to keep them out of society for women's protection if what they say is true. Of course, it's not.
Click to expand...

joko104 said:
My daughter is tying to enlist in the Air Force, though talked to the Army too. If she goes into the Air Force, she will go in as an E3 due to college. A 6 year sign up. The Army recruiter was adamant they wanted her to enlist in the officer's program with - if I heard her correctly - a 20 year commitment.
So it's the Air Force or nothing.

She has no interest in the Navy and certainly not the Marines. So it's the Air Force or nothing. Her goal is not a military career. Her goal is to add military service to her overall resume.

Her announcement of pursuing joining the Air Force surprised us.

She is attending a top private university on full scholarship. Her ultimate career goal is to go into environmental law enforcement at a governmental management level. Upon completing her 6 years in the Air Force, which also will give her the bachelor's degree, she then would obtain her master's degree. Since government positions generally give deference to military service as a preference in applicants, she believes this helps her resume' lifelong. However, since she will get a BA out of it anyway, why spend another 2 1/2 years in college and then enlist - which by then she probably would have so much going on in her life she wouldn't want to. She is a person who plans her future - something most young people don't.

I'm not familiar with military rankings.
Click to expand...

You are either making things up again or heard wrong. There are no 20 year commitments in the military. Maybe you should pay more attention
So you admit that you are not familiar with rank in the military a very basic concept but you have no problem telling me (someone currently in the military) how the military works. Do you really not see the humor in that and why some people have a hard time taking you seriously.
 
Last edited:
braindrain said:
Oh I thought the point of a debate was I say something and than you say something and both of us try to prove the other wrong. You said what I claimed wasn't true. I can very easily prove you wrong that seems to me the point of a debate. Maybe it is you just don't want everyone to know that you are wrong and have no clue what you are talking about. Could that be it.
Click to expand...

When Joko gets pushed into a corner, he just shuts down and ignores you. I've asked him at least 7 or 8 times in this thread why he opposes equal treatment and he's refused to answer every time. He just drones on about me being sexist or something for wanting equal standards.
 
joko104 said:
My daughter is tying to enlist in the Air Force, though talked to the Army too. If she goes into the Air Force, she will go in as an E3 due to college. A 6 year sign up. The Army recruiter was adamant they wanted her to enlist in the officer's program with - if I heard her correctly - a 20 year commitment.
So it's the Air Force or nothing.

She has no interest in the Navy and certainly not the Marines. So it's the Air Force or nothing. Her goal is not a military career. Her goal is to add military service to her overall resume.

Her announcement of pursuing joining the Air Force surprised us.

She is attending a top private university on full scholarship. Her ultimate career goal is to go into environmental law enforcement at a governmental management level. Upon completing her 6 years in the Air Force, which also will give her the bachelor's degree, she then would obtain her master's degree. Since government positions generally give deference to military service as a preference in applicants, she believes this helps her resume' lifelong. However, since she will get a BA out of it anyway, why spend another 2 1/2 years in college and then enlist - which by then she probably would have so much going on in her life she wouldn't want to. She is a person who plans her future - something most young people don't.

I'm not familiar with military rankings.
Click to expand...

I don't see any reason why a woman couldn't perform in the Air Force as a pilot, or something of that nature. It would be quite different than in a submarine or any combat group situation. I know it has been done but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.
 
braindrain said:
You are either making things up again or heard wrong. There are no 20 year commitments in the military. Maybe you should pay more attention
So you admit that you are not familiar with rank in the military a very basic concept but you have no problem telling me (someone currently in the military) how the military works. Do you really not see the humor in that and why some people have a hard time taking you seriously.
Click to expand...

Since you are the one who insisted the Marines do not use semi-auto rifles, you aren't winning your point.
 
joko104 said:
Something he said does go along that lines. He said the US military studied the German military and found that one reason they were so effective in Western Europe was because the unit or squad leader in the German army had a great amount of autonomy in terms of decision power, while the American military was very top-down command dependent. This allowed German units top to bottom to be far more reactive per the immediate circumstance, while the American soldiers had to wait for orders and then follow them, whether they made much sense or not. That would be consistent with the US military now preferring not to just pick replacements but more respect "the unit" or "squad" integrity.

Curiously, defiance of orders in the battlefield itself was more tolerated in the German army than the US military. Even Rommel defied Hitler and was promoted rather punished. That is just my observation.
Click to expand...

You are correct to a certain extent regarding military doctrine post ww2-we realized eyes on intelligence trumps top down leadership, especially on a microscopic basis.

But to conclude that this means current military doctrine reflects the inflexibility of ww2, is silly. The US military arguably is better than any modern 1st world military, and at the same time is better than ANY military in the world (in any world) at anti guerilla ops. These are real and significant benefits.

Joko, were you in the military? What high education do you hold? What recent books on doctrine and strategy have you read?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom