- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 75,684
- Reaction score
- 39,950
- Location
- USofA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
All the time?
yes. all the time we do not abandon Marines.
All the time?
yes. all the time we do not abandon Marines.
Not the same intensity and intensity is important.
It was rejected for political reasons. Not because the IDF commanders had an epiphany and decided that coed infantry units would be the best thing since sliced bread. The, "discovery", was made by the IDF and it was, "rejected", by a judge.
That's one of the problems that will cause damage to unit cohesion.
Not if the females are being transported to a different area to get their hot shower, while the male soldiers are washing their nads in a bucket, next their foxhole.
Refer back to Oscar's post where he mentioned going 53 days without a shower.
Which is exaclty the point I've been trying to make.
I can see securing your casualties and making an attempt at destroying the vehicle, but you don't assault. Right?
Very few wars in the history of the IDF were as intense as the 2006 Lebanon war.
You brought up the six-day war, but this war was still less intense than the 2006 Lebanon war, it was only six-days long after all. :2razz:
Soldiers during the 2006 Lebanon war have had to keep up with constant battles for weeks and have not been sleeping or showering for days. I believe that's one perfect example there for you.
The "discovery" was made in '48 when the IDF was a baby army, several days old.
The rejection of that decision was made in '95, and the IDF would have not allowed it to happen was the supreme court decision such a devastating decision.
I still don't understand where's the damaging factor here. You're saying that because one of the unit brothers is a unit sister they would be less tied to each other as a unit?
Transported? During a war?
Such concerns as letting a female on her day of the month have a hot shower are minor and during an actual war I believe they can be passed on.
on an IED? usually the "assault" would be comprised of tactical-site-exploitation (if victim initiated) or going after the trigger man (if not). or, if it was the iniatior for a larger ambush, dealing with that. but yes. generally the proper response to someone attacking you is to attack him right back and kill him. Even our POG's are taught from Boot Camp (before they go to combat training) that the proper response to a near ambush is to turn and assault.
and again. just speeding up and driving off leaving a vic with three of your guys in it behind is never acceptable.
Ok, let me make sure I have a solid copy here: When your convoy is ambushed, you're going to halt the convoy, then you're going to deminish the convoy's security, just to go looking for a few sappers that are hiding in the bushes?
I can understand securing casualties. But, at the same time, I can't see getting an entire convoy wasted for a couple of dead bodies, either. There's the larger picture that has to be taken into account.
I "know a guy" who watched 2 Iraqi IPs burn to death. Iraqis were in a Ford Explorer loaded with their ammo, escorting US patrol through the city. IED hits their vehicle. Guy I know and his squad get out of their vehicle to assist, before they can reach the Iraqis the ammo starts going off due to the fire. literally thousands of rounds in all directions. guy I know, with much regret, orders his team back into their vehicle until explosions stop.
question: did this guy make the right choice not to risk the lives of his squad on the slim chance to save the two iraqis? would it make a difference if it had been two US GIs?
Ok, let me make sure I have a solid copy here: When your convoy is ambushed, you're going to halt the convoy, then you're going to deminish the convoy's security, just to go looking for a few sappers that are hiding in the bushes?
I can understand securing casualties. But, at the same time, I can't see getting an entire convoy wasted for a couple of dead bodies, either. There's the larger picture that has to be taken into account.
Ok, let me make sure I have a solid copy here: When your convoy is ambushed, you're going to halt the convoy, then you're going to deminish the convoy's security, just to go looking for a few sappers that are hiding in the bushes?
I can understand securing casualties. But, at the same time, I can't see getting an entire convoy wasted for a couple of dead bodies, either. There's the larger picture that has to be taken into account.
****ty to say. but yeah, it makes a difference that they were IP's v. Marines.
****ty to say. but yeah, it makes a difference that they were IP's v. Marines.
What about the few women who are on par? Too bad for the few women.
How long will they be "on par" with men? For that moment they trained like hell? Vincent makes the case beyond physical qualifications in post #158.
Then there is the fear standards will be lowered, or women will be brought in to make a statement.
It was used to make a point how physically weak women are. There might be the one in ten million who is strong enough, has the stamina... for a while, and actually wants to fight. Too bad for her.
.
I think this guy would've probably made the same decision had they been US troops.
no comment there really possible. that's one of those decisions that whatever you decide to do, it can probably be justified.
but if we had even the slightest inclination that any of our guys were in a vehicle that was on fire; we would have gone for them.
not at all. i'm going to halt the convoy to A) get my people who are wounded in the downed vic
and B) kill the guys hiding in the bushes. depending on how i'm feeling. if i am tired i may just capture them so that someone back in the rear can interrogate them etc.
btw. keeping the convoy together isnt' demolishing it's "security", it's maintaining your security. running away and leaving your rear vic behind is what demolishes your security.
1. these guys weren't dead
2. nobody checked to see if they were
3. if the enemy presents a chance to close with and destroy, close with and destroy. the "oh i don't want to get hurt" mentality will - in the end - hurt more.
I think this guy would've probably made the same decision had they been US troops. there was no way of knowing if the two guys in the truck even survived the initial explosion. not going to risk 8 lives to recover 2 bodies. I'd rather write the letter to the parents of the 2 guys in the truck than write letters to the parents of the two in the truck plus the two or three killed/maimed trying to get to them. the guy I know took two rounds to his body armor while still 50 meters away.
Because, that's just the way things are. That's how our society works and no amount of social engineering in the military is going to change that.
That's hog wash. Either you mature enough, or you're a child. If you can't handle sexuality, you can't handle life and death. It isn't socail engineering. It's expecting adults to behave like adults. I'm concerned that too many make excuses for childish and immature behavior.
Did you really serve in the Army?
The part that you're missing, is that this standard already exists, because of the policies currently in place. It's not going away and as Oscar pointed out, the existance of such policies in combat arms units will cause resentment within the ranks and thereby damage unit cohesion.
Did you really serve in the Army?
Those policies don't exist because of people like me. They exist because of people like you and Oscar, who don't want your daughter sharing a tent with a sweaty corporal.
Actually, they exist because of candy ass females who want to be treated special and because of politicians who want females to be treated special and politicians who don't want to look they deprived female soldiers of their femanazi rights.
Did YOU? And if so, how does dishing chow in the mess hall prepare you to comment on combat conditions?