Lower standards to allow white men into special forces

Doesn't matter what anyone believes. Truth is what truth is. This isn't a church where "beliefs" matter. What is dunderheaded is claiming a certainty such could not be true. That means you are not much in the loop in the military. There are a few others on this forum who were or are and/or who also have kids in the military (or were) with first hand or thru their kids know the type of missions I refer too. They don't bother with ranting ex-grunts against women or much anything else they post about the weight of ruck packs. We also realize discussing such topics, to the extent possibly allowed, are not suitable for public internet discussions.

 

Last I checked a senior NCO wasn’t considered a low tanker but either way it’s much better then a no ranker pretending to be an expert.

And nice little fairytale you have there about your family reunion. It’s a nice twist on the all to played out internet tough guy bit. No more believable but still a nice change.

I think your problem is you have a hard time separating the fiction you see in movies and reality.

 

Yes the truth is what the truth is. To bad nothing you have posted is even close to the truth.

 

Nothing I've posted I haven't posted before.

 

NCO is called "sub-officer" in many militaries and is a relatively low ranker, DEPENDENT upon the role. In some areas, an NCO can be king of the enlisted in the particular unit and in many settings. In mission critical roles for vital missions, an NCO or even mere non-officer enlisted can have more actual authority than a colonel and if push comes to shove the colonel may lose big time. When rank and decorum matters, rank rules. For actual missions, the mission itself can rule over rank. Circumstantially, a non-officer enlisted can have more authority than a NCO or even colonel upon a showdown review - again circumstantially. The days of rank declares who is God is gone in many ways. The structure is far more complex and diverse. So don't let being an NCO go to your head too much.

You don't know any of that? If not, it'd be a good idea that you try to figure it out. You ever get in the way of a critical mission using rank and you may be filling out discharge papers.

 

Other than signing up to jump into a thread trashing American women in the military and to troll me, anything else you have to say? Or is that it?

 

Noting my prior warning, let's make it clear your PUBLICLY STATED position as an NCO. You are claiming that NO female in the American military has ever been on any significant combat mission in any combat zone - and anyone who claims otherwise is a liar because no woman could possibly be capable of doing so. Is that the "lie" you claim I am telling?

I don't hedge on my opinions. Let's try to lock down anything you are saying other than just being a newbie who is trolling.

 

I guess a guy unable to use anything but a cheap phone wouldn't realize that even if a signature line is erased, anyone who cared to bother can pull up anything previously on the Internet even if it was deleted, and most forums allow administrators to pull up original deletions too, though I don't know about this forum, nor would they care to anyway.

But you and I know what your signature line was and, unlike you, if I make a mistake, post something false, or go back and edit or delete a message I have no problem owning up to it.

Someone who can't own up to what they posted in some need to do anything to avoid ever being shown wrong is a serious ego flaw.

 

You really don't understand intelligence capabilities and methods, so it seems odd that your posting about them as if you're a collection manager. But I guess that goes hand to hand with you regarding military and ex-military as the least qualified to speak on military matters.

 

You are rather desperate on this topic, aren't you? If you ever care to actually quote me correctly, I'll be glad to debate you. Old ex military men can be like old drunks at the end of a bar.

 

Last I checked we were talking about the US military. And the US military does not consider my rank a low rank. The rest of your rambling nonsense is just that. Nonsense.

 

Still waiting for you to back up your claims about my signature. Wonder why you can't. Actually I don't wonder at all.

 

It's relative. Obviously.

 

Again with the lies. I joined well before either of these two threads.
Tell me are you this dishonest in real life.

 

First of all you so called warning was nothing more then a joke and a demonstration of how clueless you are.

And please quote me stating that no woman has ever been on a significant combat mission. That or admit you are simply dishonestly making cap up.

 

These topic threads are just hate-on-women threads and nothing else. That no one raised a voice to the messages by Greatax against an American soldier in a convoy whose truck was hit by an RPG and crashed, her having received no combat training, knocked unconscious and reviving with broken bones and a dysfunctional M16, captured and tortured - his declaring it the soldier's fault because the soldier should have picked other than an M16 and picking taking more ammo - then going back deleting that absurd message (which I had copies so posted it back) shifting it to it was the soldier's fault the M16 jammed and causing the capture - essentially looking for any way and anything to make up to trash and spit on that soldier because the soldier is female - are messages not only anyone in the military, ever in the military but every American should despise.

Did even ONE man join in pointing out what EVERYONE knows - NO ONE in the military dictates what caliber and model rifle they have or decides how much ammo to carry? Of course not - not when it is to trash women. Did anyone criticize his claim that even after being hit by an RPG, crashed, unconscious and broken bones she should have single handed won the battle of this attack for which her capture and being tortured was her fault?

Why didn't the more than dozen men who did not have broken bones win the battle? Why were they captured? But its not about combat or that incident, it is about any possible way to post the most hateful messages about women possible, in this instance in the military.

Why would no man on these threads also point out troops do not pick their own rifles? Why no defense of that soldier? Because this is just about trashing women. That is what this thread and others like it are about, nothing else.

 

Then copy it and prove your claim. Put up or shut you dishonest clown.

 

It seems that the clown that has to make up less to try and prove his claims is the desperate one.

 

It is not rare on forums to read men trashing women regardless of the topic: insecure men who fail with women personally so, accordingly, hate all women. A little group of them will gather on a thread - regardless of topic - ranting about women and claiming their unproven male greatness.

 

Once again, did you on the forum for any other purpose than to trash women in the American military and to troll me because I do not join in the hate-on-women fest?

 

No, you have 11 messages you posted prior. That does not qualify as "well before." 3 on socialism. 1 on college requirements for the military. 1 on uniforms and 4 on Trump and Afghanistan. 31 on women-trashing threads trolling me.

 

The VFW speech occasion was interesting. There was a tiny prize/scholarship (could just pocket it) involved, $300 I think. The only other person was a kid who said he was joining the Marines. He stuttered thru a speech. People listened politely. He's forget what he was going to say along the way - so would shout "Oorah!" each time until he could figure something next to say. The old colonel who was to make the decision said he won. Others, not just the women, were furious. But the old Colonel said the kid was going into the Marines as why he won, not the "squaw" asserting she would just be a nurse, secretary or sit at a desk somewhere if she joined. Men are warriors. Women are squaws. Others there quick put together $300 to give it to my daughter, profusely apologizing. She declined it. It was educational to her, but not surprising.

 

First of all before it's a measure of time not number of posts.
Second what you consider well before really doesn't matter because if I joined this site even one minute before these two threads were created it proves you wrong and further demonstrated your dishonesty.

 

If you ever have anything to say, post it and I might response. Your constant say-nothing trolling has run its course with me. Maybe you should buy a better phone to post with.

 

More make believe stories from the sites leading fiction teller.

Just so you know it is not the fact that the hero in all your little stories is a female. They would be just as unbelievable the if it was a guy. Your fiction is simply just to unbelievable. You shouldn't quit your day job.