Lower standards to allow white men into special forces

The obsession I see is your posting the identical message repeatedly and to referring to women in the American military as "girls."

What is also obvious is of those posting on these topics I am the only one who knows any female in the military who has been combat. But that should be no surprise given the extreme levels of insecurity toward women of most "boys" posting on these topics. Men who are extremely insecure and failed around and with women tend to then rant against women.

 

Been in combat or in combat arms? Lots of military females have been "in combat" since we've been in Iraq and Afghanistan since the whole AO is a combat zone, and you're likely to be shot at or shelled anywhere or any time. I realize that to someone like yourself who hasn't been in the military that may seem remarkable but it's SOP for the past 16 years.

M'lady isn't special in other words.

 

Young who barely graduate from high school join up because are not suited for college lacking the intelligence, acquired knowledge and/or are too mentally lazy for college and can't find a decent job, so they enlist. This is their 15 minutes of fame. For their temporarily ability to carry a heavy pack long distance like a mule, they come to believe they are military genius and the essence of the American military, where in fact they were the least valued individually and most easily replaced. The more time passes, the better they were to their minds and the more pigheadedly ignorant they become. The military does not put the best and the brightest standing at an intersection or at risk to snipers, ambush or IEDs.

Old military and ex-military men have always been a curse to any country's military. They are responsible for countless needlessly lost lives, lost battles, lost wars and defeated countries. They can not think in terms of future wars, only past wars and generally even then limited only to their notably limited experiences. The list is vast. France's old generals believing Germany could ever get past their fixed fortifications. Refusal to go to semi-auto rifles in the proven failed over and again "one shot - one kill" theory. The insistence that aircraft would never be suited for naval warfare and nothing superior to battleships. That warships could never be made out of anything but wood and powered by anything but sails. Aircraft only suitable of observation. Body armor more important than weapons development. That mechanized transport could never replace horses and mules. That all combat troops must have bayonets... and on and on and on.

If pointing out they are outdated, they will rant and sneer and search for any example to prove their claim. Mules were used in the mountains of Korea. One time in Iraq a British squad used bayonets. One time on a mission they had to travel fast 10 miles on foot with 120+ pounds of gear each. Thus, they claim, the entire military should be build upon that example - the pigheaded stupidity of old military men.

Desperate to "prove" they are correct. For example, in WW1 to prove tanks were not viable, they were limited to a top speed of how fast people WALK, to assure ground troops were faster and therefore tanks not viable. Testing of aircraft in Naval warfare was done in ways to assure the aircraft would fail - even attempted court martial resulting from not staying in that limitation to successfully sink a battleship. No different for the topic of women in combat. Set standards women can not generally meet, and then claim that proves their claim on the assertion that all of ground combat actions of any kind depend upon that measure.

I understand, crude and juvenile minded men of inconsequential lives and inconsequential history - military or otherwise - find their merit outside of themselves, claiming they are superior for their race or sex/gender. So desperate, they do as Greatax does - to make up anything false, changing even his own stories to so, to trash an American soldier whose vehicle was hit by an RPG, severely wounded to the point of broken bones, and tortured as a POW because she is female.

Unlike his opinion - and unlike yours - at one level all Americans in service are "special," and only rude, crude and often cowardly men do not see all women as "special." She is special. Special to me. I suspect more special to the military than any man posting on this forum ever was or is. The Marine of combat in Afghanistan as a squad leader would readily agree she is of vastly more importance than he was. However, supergirl is not currently in any theater of combat and likely not again. The value has gone too high to risk it.

As to the superiority of men in such combat roles? The 2 men before her both were killed in the line of duty in the identical combat zones trying to do the identical mission tasks, ie kill enemy. Killed in ways you don't even know exist. They were likely very skilled, but not enough, just a tad lacking and it cost them their lives. She said she does not fear the enemy. She only fears stupid men on our side as what might get her killed, such as many of the men posting on these threads so into their frail male egos and their brains disorganized and unstructured chaos who then make knee-jerk decisions and actions. Men of the view that it is all just about bravado and grunting, that it doesn't matter if you kill enemy or hit your target - only that they got there and were pulling a trigger - the very of those who actually did ever kill any enemy at all or were ever in actual combat - rather than just in a combat theater.

 

I remember reading somewhere that in WW2, it was common for pilots to look down at ground troops thinking "I sure wouldn't want to be one of them" and ground troops looking up at the aircraft thinking "glad I'm not one of those guys."

And for all the glories of combat in WW2, guess who suffered the highest rate of casualties of all and for essential critical work? Was it the Marines? Army? Army or Navy air? Navy? No. It was those in the Merchant Marines. Yet how many decades passed before even those who lost their lives were considered as veterans.

As for what was MOST valuable in ground warfare in Europe for American forces according to Eisenhower? "The 6 ton truck."

Grunts and ex-grunts declaring THEY are military experts? Sad. But I guess their egos need it. I mean, no one wants to feel worthless and inferior their whole lives and some guys don't have much to pick from to avoid that.

 

I dropped nothing. You are delusional.

 

Again making up lies I see.

How about you quote me claiming I know all. That or simply stop lying.

The fact that you have to resort to lies and building straw men the second you are called on your BS proves that even you know none of what you said is true. It’s why you can’t defend any of it.

 

Lol. Not even believable enough to be good fiction.
You keep trying though. It makes good comedy. And even more importantly it demonstrates to everyone what a dishonest poster you are.

 

That the Army plans to use ground based recon for targeting if there is war against N. Korea. However, that claim is good reason to not believe a word he posts. Given our satellite, aircraft based and drone capabilities, the only reason we would do that would be if there were some guys we wanted to get killed off. What do you or he think is the range of surveillance of aircraft at 32,000 feet? What do you think Hubble-type satellites are used for? Technology can see even from great distance what and in ways no human can even if 100 yards away.

 

You claiming as an NCO in Army intelligence that the Army plans on sending in ground recon into N. Korea for targeting in the event of war? What a joke. Is your security clearance as NCO to supervise the night shift cleaning crew? This isn't the 1950s.

The fact is we can see anything we want to see, destroy anything we want to destroy, and kill anyone we want to kill in N. Korea never crossing the border. Anyone who has anything but limited - if any - knowledge of CURRENT military capabilities knows this. Even people who have no clearances - ie intelligent people - do. We could take out Kim Jung Un or anything or anyone in N Korea anytime we want to.

 

Of your 25 messages so for, all have been nothing but trolling. You sound like a very frustrated person.

I guess that "cheap phone" you have and your inability to spell check as you had in your signature line until you deleted it after I ridiculed it is why? Is anything but a "cheap phone" too technologically complex for you?

 

You think that is classified information. Lol. That simply shows how clueless you are.
It’s called common knowledge and something the US military has been doing since pretty much we dropped the first bomb from a plane.

 

First of all I never said anything about being in intelligence. Learn to read

Second the fact you think ground reconnaissance went away in the 50s shows what a clown you are.

 

Calling out your BS is not trolling. Sorry you don’t like it but if a person doesn’t want to called a liar they should stop lying.

 

That is YOUR level of dishonest. Your signature line stated an apology for spelling errors because you have a cheap phone. Are you really denying that?

 

Typical stuff, to change the topic. The topic is not "ground recon." It was you claiming that Army intelligence on your knowledge plans to use ground recon for targeting specifically if we go to war against N. Korea.

The only "ground recon" that might be done in N. Korea would not be done by men running fast wearing heavy packs and it would not be in a war context, but in a non-war context for a specific target or specific intel. If there is a war, all hell would break out in N. Korea from the sky - not by ground troops charging or dropping in or on-the-ground behind enemy lines recon.

 

Yes I am. You have zero idea what you are talking about.

 

It’s something we do in every war. The fact that you don’t know it just shows how clueless you are.
And speaking of changing the topic it’s funny how after I pointed out the ridiculousness of your op you stopped talking about it completely. Wonder why.

 

Excuse me, I though you claimed you had some knowledge basis for all the things you claim the military doesn't do as your basis to claim all I posted is false and that you know it is.

 

Ok, since we both know that is 100% false, you really are just trolling the forum, and specifically me.

 

Then prove it.

 

Yes let’s hear the person with zero military experience and zero military knowledge tell us how the war will be fought.
Like I said if nothing else you are good for a laugh.

 

I have a whole heck of a lot basis then you. But then so does virtually everyone as you are incredible clueless.

 

Lying about what? That there is a female who has been in combat zones on specialized missions that killed enemy because - in your view as an NCO no woman could ever do so because women are that inferior? Or was I lying that France lost to Germany because the ancient WW1 generals of France still believed that WW1 designed fixed fortifications could not be passed?

 

Low rankers declaring to be experts. That's the good laugh.

I have 3 kids of military service, one active. Every generation of family has been in the American military, and in war, back to the war of 1812. Some were low rankers like apparently you are. Not all. Some have had security clearances and in missions you don't even know exist. When one of my daughters gave a "Voice of Democracy" speech at the local VFW post starting with her family military history, they all stood and applauded. It was went she got to her grandfather in the China-Burma theater in WW2. Many a white cross in this country is one of our ancestors, mostly on their mother's side.

The last one? They said there's no room left at that particular military cemetery. We said "make room." They did.

I posted this before and I'll post it again. If you went on with negative insults and views about women in the military during a family reunion, it would go like this:

One of my sons (Marine) smiling: "Hey sis, he might have a point. Maybe you women can't fight. Why don't you and he go outside and let's find out which of you is right."

One of my daughters standing to you: "Let' you and I go outside."

And then we'd all laugh at you either for you too cowardly to go or at you soon down in the dirt.

We're back woods people who most definitely believe in "fighting words." Almost like we like the excuse.

 

You have been lying pretty much non stop on this thread. No one who has any military knowledge believes you little wonder woman stories. You really should just give it a rest.