Lower standards to allow white men into special forces

Discussion in 'Warfare / Military' started by JakeJ, Dec 5, 2017.

  1. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    24,604
    Likes Received:
    6,107
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Should military physical strength and speed standards continue to be lower than optimal to allow inferior white men in special forces and advanced combat roles?

    It is largely accepted that inferior strength and speed of women endangers lives and cripples the military in terms of combat roles and special forces. Standards being reduced to allow women to qualify is ruining the military per the argument.

    If so, low physical standards to make it easier for white men to qualify also should not be allowed since the same reasoning means this endangers lives and weakens the military.

    Study after study shows that black men are stronger on average than white men. It is a genetic fact, just as it is a genetic fact men are stronger than women on average due to dna.

    While there are rare exceptions, a person only has to look at professional contact sports such as football and to the Olympics to easily see what studies also show: black men generally are measurably stronger and faster than white men, for which white men are inferior to black men for all combat roles, particularly special forces type troops. One only has to look at the percentage of black linemen and linebackers in the NFL compared to whites and who wins in track in the Olympics to recognize that black men generally as decisively stronger and faster than white men. In actual fighting competitions, such as boxing, it also is clear that blacks and non-whites are superior fighters, more rugged, stronger and fastest.

    For example, in testing police it is known that white police officers, male or female, whether new recruits or 10 year veterans, blacks are notably over 10% stronger than whites.

    https://digitalcommons.wku.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1604&context=ijes

    How can reducing the ability of our special forces and top combat units to 87% of what it could be to suit inherently physically inferior white men for PC racial equality be justifiable when it costs lives? What possible justification is there to endanger everyone for the PCism of pretending the races are equal in speed in strength?

    Granted, to have enough troops it may unfortunately be necessary to have weak, inferior white men in ordinary combat roles, but allowing white men in the extreme roles of special forces just to placate white men with the resulting endangering and lose of lives is indefensible.

    Given it is a FACT to most people that inferior strength and speed for military personnel in combat roles endangers lives, threatens mission success and endangers the military, should white people, male and female, be banned from special advanced combat forces? While white men might be suited for ordinary infantry, they should be banned from special ops, Green Berets and the Rangers due to their inherent inferior weakness and slowness. Or is the reasoning that inferior strength and speed should disqualify a gender or race flawed? For PC reasons to get around the inferiority of whites, irrelevant standards such as intelligence are added, when what matters is strength and speed. That lives for PC racial slogans of equality should be endangered given that whites are 87% weaker is outrageous.

    There is no defense to reducing standards and making up irrelevant non-physical standards to allow inferior white men into special forces and advanced combat roles for the PCism theory of the races being identical. For available special forces or other top combat roles, those should go solely to who is measurably the strongest and fastest. If this results in such units being 85% non-white, so be it. The PCism of racial equality setting lower standards just to make it possible for white men in the military to qualify for top combat roles needs to end.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2017
  2. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    65,538
    Likes Received:
    14,083
    Trophy Points:
    113
    what standard was lowered?
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2017
  3. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    24,604
    Likes Received:
    6,107
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If there are 100 candidates for 20 special forces, Green Beret, Ranger, Navy Seal or any other combat position, those 100 should run a marathon with equal weight packs and each do as many push ups as they can. The 20 fastest and stronger should be who obtains the 20 positions. There should be no other considerations since lower strength and slower speed endangers lives. If this results in few or no white men or any other racial demographic, that is the reality of dna and genetics. No one should die for racial PCism.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2017
    jay runner and VotreAltesse like this.
  4. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    24,604
    Likes Received:
    6,107
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Despite PCism and people being equal in terms of rights, genetics does make a difference in terms of strength, endurance, speed, intelligence, tolerance to pain, muscle mass strength, resistance to disease, and bone strength/density. Ancestry, race and ethnicity do come into play including decisively. White people tend to be smarter, but lesser than Asians. Whites tend to be stronger than Asians, but weaker than blacks.

    Why are military standards set low enough to allow virtual all men to qualify, but not based upon the highest standard - ie who is the fastest and strongest - rather than just a minimal threshold to negative the fact that some races are faster and stronger than others? IF inferior strength and speed endangers lives and missions, then it is a concession to racial PCism that costs lives and endangers missions.
     
  5. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    24,836
    Likes Received:
    3,918
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wow you are trolling hard dude.
     
    Russ103, Battle3, Bear513 and 4 others like this.
  6. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    24,604
    Likes Received:
    6,107
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This topic of women in combat is restarted over and over and over by white ex-military men ranting of the absolute importance of the greatest physical abilities. Each time I raise the point that they are physically inferior to blacks, so why were they graduated and not booted out as physically disqualified?

    100% of the time, as you just did, they absolutely do not pretend they have any defense to their physical inferiority due to their race. INSTANTLY, physical strength and speed is irrelevant if applied to their racial dna, while ranting about superior sex dna. This once again proves it NOT about physical strength of women, but their male insecurity towards women. Such white military men do NOT want their own claimed standards applied to themselves, only against women.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2017
    Sallyally likes this.
  7. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    8,775
    Likes Received:
    340
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Yea, is why I am done with him.

    Is it me, or have the number of racist and irrational trolls in here increased dramatically in recent months? Is like I can not turn anywhere anymore and they are not injecting this kind of garbage.
     
    Derideo_Te, Guno and Ndividual like this.
  8. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    24,604
    Likes Received:
    6,107
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL! The defense of hiding when YOUR superiority is challenged. Always happens on these topics. Ranting that men are physically superior to women, and freaking out when pointing out black men generally are physically superior to white men. How dare your self-declared superiority be challenged on your own declared standard of measurement.

    Grunt mentality is pigheaded stupidity mentality, why grunts should be ignored in any military planning and policies. Anything other than "yes, you guys with rifles are everything" and they throw themselves on the floor ranting and sobbing like a 4 year old throwing a tantrum.
     
  9. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    24,604
    Likes Received:
    6,107
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It isn't just black men who genetically (depending on from where their ancestors in Africa were from) are superior by physical measures to white men of Western European ancestry. Other races and ethnicities are too. If you are white, it is a certainty that my bone density, muscle mass per volume, tolerance to pain and resistance to disease is superior to yours - notably. Superior to most black men too.

    It took a while to figure it out, and not until adult to figure why. Kick a guy in the groin or smash his nose and he's on the floor tearing up. Do that to me and all you did was piss me off. In my youth and early adult years I was in more real life serious fights than any would believe.

    While I proactively pursued physical skills development, its also in my genetics, none which I can claim credit for. But no matter how hard I studied, I could never hope for a Nobel Peace prize for science or knowledge. The last thousands and thousands of years of evolution generation to generation of your ancestors increasingly opposite of mine. In other ways than physical measures, you might be dna superior.

    Funny to read of ranting AGAINST "racism" while ranting FOR sexism. Defensive hypocrisy? No surprise there.

    Either the standard for THE selection process is who is strongest and fastest - or it's not the standard. Either way, as the absolute being claimed, white men lose. They either lose to women or lose to non-white men.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2017
  10. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    24,836
    Likes Received:
    3,918
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gibberish
     
  11. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    24,836
    Likes Received:
    3,918
    Trophy Points:
    113
    JakeJ doesn't seem to be particularly irrational except on this one particular topic. It's personal for him so having a debate based on reasoned argument, statistics, data, or being more knowledgable military operations than he has is irrelevant to him. Others on this forum also seem to have personal tripwires that make discussion impossible although this one is particularly humorous!
     
  12. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    24,604
    Likes Received:
    6,107
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thank you for the comment. Here is my serious thoughtful response. Long, but please read it.

    Yes, I feel strongly on this topic, not just because of the women's topic, but the overall topic of the military and priorities. There are real crisis points in the military. Huge ones. Over half our military aircraft can not fly. That is a massive problem. We have ships that can not go to sea. Broken equipment everywhere. Veteran costs are skyrocketing as the million+ who fought in Vietnam face old age illnesses. The costs of technological development demands is thru the ceiling. Our nuclear triade is severely aged.

    Time and against some former military member will start the same topic of "OMG! They lowered standards to let women be in combat! OMG, there is now ! female Seal or 1 female green beret. People are going to die! Our military is destroyed."

    Then military and ex-military brag on how good they were in meeting physical standards, how inferior most men now are in the military, and how they could run circles around those weak, awful women for which not even one could do 50 pushups, or as you put it "girls."

    "Girls" are killing enemy. Girls are being wounded in combat and in support. Girls are doing incredibly dangerous support roles on 16 hour, 7 day a week schedules in 110 degree heat and in the snow. When a medivac aircraft full of military men with severe life threatening wounds or medical issues is stuck on the ground in Germany, it was a "girl" already past that day's 16 hours who went off the clock to get the plane into the air, though military regs literally required they just be left to live or die sitting on the runway to the next day. There was no one else but that girl to do it. Literally no one. So she broke the rules - actually a serious violation - to save their lives. Per military regs they literally were supposed to just stay on that runway until the next day. If any died, they died. There was no doctor on the plane, just a couple medics.

    In the overall scope of the massive challenges, numerous crisis level problems and massive money shortages, the OMG a woman green beret?!!!! is a study in triviality AND wrongheadedness in my opinion. The next battle we lose because a woman runs 21% slower across 10 miles wearing a rucksack is - predictable - exactly never.

    Old military and low level grunts ALWAYS rant against military evolution. They would rant against mechanization because they rode horses. Rant against mobile defense because they were in fixed fortifications. Rant against M16s because they had M1s. Rant against racial integration. Rant against blacks being officers and pilots. Against retiring battleships. Against retiring Warhogs. Rant against a change in uniforms or caps or boots. Basically anything different from they way it was - or is - for them, any change.

    On the topic of women in combat roles it is the same. When I say "wait, let's look at this logically, historically and in actuality?" OMG! I'm trolling! Must be in love with a girl. I never carried a rifle in a unit so I can't know anything. ANYTHING to avoid any actual ISSUE - factual or logical or historic _ that I raise. Men can run faster and lift more, end of debate, right?

    Your just assert that current physical standards for combat MUST be maintained - and if not your son might get killed - is nothing more than assertion and one I believe exactly opposite from accurate. WOMEN are who are winning the education and intelligence contest between men and woman now, opposite from the past. It is not another man with a rifle who ran 12 miles wearing a 70 pound pack that will keep your son safe. Nor save him if he is wounded. It will be technical people who most keep him safe, including some who come into the same combat zones and are entitled to the same combat training and status for doing so. Usually, rescuing wounded is more dangerous than being in a combat unit as it almost always means rescue under fire and being in the open to do the rescue.

    Technocrats, geeks, technology is what MOST will keep your son out of harms way and most will rescue him if he is in it. They are who most will best keep him out of combat in the first place - and that is the safest of all.

    They are looking out for him overhead and from thousands of miles away. Pursuing everyway possible so he will never have a bullet coming his way or an IED going off by him. A teckie only capable of 50 pushups or a medic of only 50 pushups? He should hope one of those are in his unit if he goes into combat. That brainy teckie may have solutions no one else in the unit would even think of. Rather unjust to have someone along with lifesaving skills being told "yes, you are coming with us but you are too inferior to have the title of Ranger or Green Beret. Only we can because we can do 20 more pushups than you" - or "We need support! We need evacuation from you INFERIOR people" - they facing the same - if not even greater - deadly dangers if they do - and if any are available at all. Increasingly, they are not. Make the call and hear "no one qualified is available at this time. That is becoming the norm rather than the exception.

    There also is harm in the opposition. As the military desperately needs to increase the number teckies, geeks etc including in combat zones, instead the number is decreasing as they are quitting/not re-enlisting en mass numbers. That means THE most skilled, most knowledge, most proven and most capable are quitting. Replacing any of them will take years as that is how long it takes to gain their skill sets.

    They are tired of being treated inferior by everyone from pencil pushing officers to combat personnel. Tired of working 80+ hour weeks in terrible conditions with dangerous stuff always under go-go-go! pressure - but court martial if he/she makes a mistake, while the "superior" personnel are enjoying their evening beer or their next R&R leave. Besides, the private sector - Amazon, Google or airline industry, electronics or communications corporations - have $6 figure jobs with regular hours, no re-locations and no danger waiting for them. This shortage IS killing people and IS defeating missions more than any other cause, because the mission is impossible to undertake.

    Your son's life is in danger MOSTLY due screwups by unqualified, overtired, insufficient maintenance, and other avoidable accidents than combat now. Another plane load of personnel falls out of the sky - increasingly common. Injuries and death by accidents increasing - rapidly.

    The amount of pressure for women in some roles to prove they are better than any man? Enormous. A man screws up? Hey, that happens. A woman does? "See! Told you women shouldn't be in the military." That's how it works, unfortunately. A lot of b.stard sexist men who act like it in the military too, mostly white officers.

    IF your son is wounded - I truly hope not - and ends up with no rescue coming or on a stretcher in a broken airplane on a runaway in Quatar or Germany, a bit of the blame might be yours, not mine. The woman who used to fly that chopper didn't re-enlist, nor did the girl who was the teckie who kept if flying.

    Other topics are not even allowed a discussion, such as cross training, training in skills diversity etc, etc.

    I DO understand why you feel how you do. If a woman can't lift artillery shells, don't put her in that role. If there every really is a mission requiring covering vast distances on foot with heavy loads, obviously only send those capable However, as the absolute of no women in combat roles if they don't meet male standard? I sincerely believe you are factually inaccurate. Deadly wrong.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2017
    Merwen, Sallyally and Seth Bullock like this.
  13. Mr_Truth

    Mr_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    18,011
    Likes Received:
    12,119
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male


    For once I agree with you.
     
    Guno likes this.
  14. ScotchCAOgold

    ScotchCAOgold Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2015
    Messages:
    583
    Likes Received:
    247
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Hahahaha troll level=pathetic
     
    Mr_Truth likes this.
  15. camp_steveo

    camp_steveo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    18,380
    Likes Received:
    1,688
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am willing to bet you have zero military experience.
     
    Guno and Mr_Truth like this.
  16. camp_steveo

    camp_steveo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    18,380
    Likes Received:
    1,688
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So, Special Forces selection is racist? Are you saying they pass over non-white recruits for white recruits?
     
  17. camp_steveo

    camp_steveo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    18,380
    Likes Received:
    1,688
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The fact is, SF selection is a physical and mental assessment. The training begns after selection and goes on for 2 years. It is not all physical.

    This thread is an insult to special forces.
     
    Guno likes this.
  18. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    24,836
    Likes Received:
    3,918
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I read it. You've calmed down some, but still you're off base. You're off base on me, and my argument. Mainly because I never made one. You came out the barn door hair on fire without me even tossing out a single data point, statistic, or even an opinion. That's how crazy you've been acting.

    For future reference, you keep conflating issues in your screeds which make you sound nuts. You are simultaneously arguing that the military needs high tech geekgrrls while at the same time bemoaning combat arms and special forces as a bunch of old bigots who don't want to change the "No Girlz Allowed" on their treehouse. Those are two entirely separate issues that really have nothing to do with each other.

    Unlike many of the other current, and former military who post here, I'm not from the combat arms field, I'm from a service support field that has plenty of geeky girls doing high tech, high speed things. There are no shortage of females in those fields and no one is trying to keep them out. They are already in and have been in for many, many decades. I've worked with and for them.

    But that is not the world of combat arms and special forces. They have a lot of high tech equipment to work with, but that doesn't describe the jobs they do. The basis of those jobs are physically demanding in a way that I don't think you have a real grasp of. You seem to think "high tech" means the end of extreme physical demands, when really, the high tech pushing of the button that you seem to think represents the current state of military affairs is at the tail end of several hours rucking over difficult terrain with a 120 lb pack. I don't think you grasp how difficult that is unless you've done it, and I don't think you've done it. In every unit I've been in, we've had many physically high performing females, but none who could keep pace in combat arms situations. Your opinion is that sad result of a generation of people watching 90 lb women throwing 230 lb men around in fights on TV & movies, and think that reflects reality. Your opinion, quite frankly, isn't based on any reality, so I've had no problem dismissing it.

    Sorry, but you've really picked the wrong battle.
     
    camp_steveo likes this.
  19. Mr_Truth

    Mr_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    18,011
    Likes Received:
    12,119
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male


    100% spot on. People like him live in a mythic world of their own.
     
    Guno and Lil Mike like this.
  20. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    24,604
    Likes Received:
    6,107
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ... and that will become several weeks and 220 pound packs. Ex military are the older they get,the better they were. But I won't debate hours of running and pack weight. If we ever find ourselves the Greeks at the Battle of Thermopylae running to the scene with small arms and a week of supplies...

    I could respond of personal experiences and family member experiences and more, but I'll let that go. Nor trade insults or speculations on a personal level further. My view is based upon realities outside your knowledge zone. You post about your experiences and knowledge of a narrow range in the past. I'm posting about the present and the future on a broader and greater current knowledge basis.

    I understand likely why you see things as you do. No reason to argue it back and forth anymore. You're not in the loop of current military actions that make the difference in continuing to tell how things were for you personally and what you personally saw.

    Ground spotters and ground forces recon are all but irrelevant. It appears your experiences are ancient history and that you likely never had much security clearance, instead were at a limited level of the missions oriented military as your vision of warfare in the past.
     

Share This Page