Lower standards to allow white men into special forces

The general grade officers are going to run the show the way the politicians tell them to run the show. And get their pension.

The field grade officers are going to run the show the way the general grade officers tell them to run it. And get their pension.

The company grade officers are going to run the show the way the field grade officers tell them to run it. And maybe get their pension if they make it to field grade.

The NCO's are going to run the show the way the company grade officers tell them to run the show. And get their pension.

The ideas of politicians have long been a severe infection in the ranks, and that infection has often killed morale, killed troops, and lost wars.

There's nothing anyone can do to stop this.

 

Yes but there is also the mental aspect to it and since you are being racist, let's just point out that 90% of the quarterbacks are white. So should intelligence be taken into consideration as well?
Stop being a race baiter and the most qualified should be accepted no matter race or gender.

 

Rangers are not special forces.

 

And can you tell me by using a professional risk assessment how that should outweigh general standards?

 

I disagree. If you have a poor set of competitors, competition just gets you the best of the poor set. Standards indicate that the people qualify by characteristics. Competition just means that they are better than the others in the group they are in.

 

We take whatever we can get into todays volunteer military,they now accept people up to 42 years old with criminal records.Up to 70% of those trying to sign up get rejected because they have diabetes or are obese or are convicted felons.We don't exactly get the cream of the crop.

 

Which group is smarter.

 

Ha ha ha. While you might be serious, it is still funny to me. But hey, if the whites that volunteer cannot meet standards, we would have to bring back the draft to get those people in who do meet the standards. And surely you are not trying to say that the white people would be defeated by an army of africans? ha ha. Consider this. There is a reason the white race dominated the known world for so long. Must be genetic? I dunno but the bad arses rise to the top. That is just reality.

 

Intelligence is never irrelevant.

 

Haha, wow, you are a clown. Look at your bolding and underlining stuff... very official and intimidating looking... especially the court martial stuff. Spooky. So, you spent a lot of time in the military? Who are you to say what is acceptable?

 

Lol, I guess only those that have very little intelligence would consider it irrelevant.

 

OJ. Simpson was a great ball player,
Problem is his IQ is 79.
Would hate the have him in a position where he has to make important decisions.

 

A clown is exactly what he is. He has no idea what he is talking about and all he does is make up these little fairy tale stories of wonderwoman that he knows personally. They are so ridiculous it is obvious that everything he knows about the military is a result of watching movies.

 

They already lowered the standards for minorities in medical school.

 

I agree other than the less dangerous part.

 

The reason is weapons technology, not MMA skills. Get real.

 

It is amusing reading the ex-military men on these threads essentially furiously insisting that American troops are just a bunch of wimp-asses compared to how much more physically tougher the VC and N. Vietnamese men are. Obviously, American troops were just too physically weak to prevail - so weak even our massively greater weaponry couldn't cover just how wimpy American soldiers were.

That would seem to follow their logic - whoever has the physically stronger ground troops wins.

 

Tell us again how you were commander of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

 

I'm fairly confident I understand that member's situation - for which the most important response I can give is to thank him for his service and sacrifice to our country. To him, "thank you!"

To you? Your messages are just a ranting clown car having no clue what is going on in the modern military.

 

You ducked the question, didn't you? Shouldn't the TOP performers be given the position - even if none are white?

It is notable that despite all the ranting of the all-important physical strength will then do a double take if I say "well, then, make that the standard. If there are only so many opening, those go to the TOP physical performers."

Of course, since that would overwhelming favor blacks, they sure don't want that! Suddenly intelligence matters. However, for women they claim it doesn't.

 

I just retired from 20 years of Army infantry service on April 1st. I’m pretty sure I have a good idea. Unlike yourself.

 

If true, I'm glad you are out. Good luck in civilian life.

 

I served in a different way I will not discuss as all that is military is not in branches of the military, other than to comment I received a personal letters of appreciation from a president, not auto-pen signed, for my service not stating how (long time ago) and was awarded an honorary lifelong membership in the VFW, which surprised me as I was never technically in any branch of the military. I still have some involvement.

Of any specific duty area I know less than anyone in it. Generally? I likely know more. 3 of my children have or are serving in the military. Two of those in combat. One in two theaters of combat. Both under live fire. Both with purple hearts. Both with disabilities from service. One in the Marines, a squad leader in Afghanistan, the other A.F.

Of them and the prior 2 generations including by marriage? Afghanistan - Marines. Afghanistan and Iraq - AF. Surveillance - worldwide - AF. Vietnam Army - 2. Korea - Army. Survivor WW2 China-Burma-India - Army. WW2 Navy - ship captain. Korean-Vietnam - Air Force, base commander. Nurse - Navy. Nurse - Army. Every generation has served in the American military going back to the war of 1812 - both sides in Civil War - or at least that is as far back as can be traced. From grunt to nurse, enlisted to officers, general to admiral, Marines, Army, Navy, Air Force and even one in the Coast Guard. My family and relatives. Of course, so then their friends.

A circle of warrior family and friends going back over 200 years and in the present. More white crosses in military cemeteries that we can count. Even went to court a few years ago on our dime to successfully demand burial in a specific military cemetery believing all members of the same family should be buried together, even if one over the other - and won it on an agreed settlement.

I know a lot because I listen more than I talk. Nor am I a nobody myself. All that is the military is not just the military branches.

What is annoying about the messages by those who were in some ground combat role or any specific duty area is they conclude they are the center of the military universe and know all the military encompasses. That is so foolish and naive it is why I refer to them as grunts and cannon fodder. Yes, they served a necessary role. Yes, they definitely should be honored in the most sincere way. But they also are a dime a dozen and easily replaced.

No war has been won or lost because one side's infantry could carry 10 more pounds than the other. Yet that is the claim of most men on these threads because that was the limit of their role and measure. I only run them down when they are running others down claiming their male ground forces faux superiority to others.

Currently the most lethal person I know in active duty is female. The most lethal person I've ever personally known in the military as well - and paying a huge personal price for it - is female. In my view, anyone who runs down women in the military are trash and anyone in the military who trash talks women in the military should be booted out with a dishonorable discharge for conduct unbecoming of an officer. The USA military has women in uniform. YOUR approval or disapproval is not relevant. If YOU can't deal with that with full respect and submissiveness to military command structure this requires of you? GET OUT ON YOUR OWN OR BE THROWN OUT WITH A DISHONORABLE. The military should not tolerant malcontent whiners or anyone who trash talks any other member of the service.

Women have - and women are - dying and being crippled for life in military service to our country. To those who ridicule and trash talk them, my response is a huge FU! But then I that is my view towards anyone who trash talks any member of the military who serves or served with honor and loyalty.

In my opinion, the reason women should be within virtually ever aspect of military service - including combat roles - is 1.) maximize the pool of skills to draw from, 2.) their brains and 3.) maximizing diversity of options. For actual missions, assign who is most suited.

 

I have no problem with women serving in combat. I have a problem when they are doing so with lower physical standards. Make the standards the same across the board regardless of sex or race.

 

Thank you for a not sneering response. I will also try to be respectful in my responses.

Why not then instead have the standard be competitive? Rather than a minimum, positions go to those who are the highest in physical abilities for available positions? If not, then claiming physical standards governs is really just a way to say "no women" - since it isn't about physical standards at all.

In addition, shouldn't the standards be the same regardless of age? That lower standards for older members of the military should be discontinued?

Whoever is the most physically capable gets the position? If that means nearly all young black guys - like NFL teams - then nearly all black - and young. After all, does a football team really need skilled but wimpy quarterbacks and fast runners?

Of course, I've been rather clear I disagree that our ground forces should be all strong back, weak mind measured - nor do I agree with one-size-fits-all in the military. Maybe prior to firearms that was the way to go.

But, do you then agree that all positions should be based upon who BEST performs physically and regardless of sex, race or age - since you claim physical ability is the decisive matter? If so, then shouldn't that be the decisive factor?

Do you see my point? The standards are NOT based upon THE the fastest and strongest. They are drawn up to specifically exclude women - but not men of generally weaker race physical ability. On average, blacks are stronger. On average, some Asians are weaker. Latinos tend to be shorter. etc. All that is adjusted for - for men. The line is drawn at women. I challenge that. However, I do agree that SOME roles should be nearly solely upon physical strength - just like SOME other military roles should be nearly solely upon intellectual abilities.

Then again, I differ in that in my opinion the military should generally be segregated by sex. Male units. Female units. Both cross trained, but also specialized matching their sex. In my study of warfare history, men are superior at offense. Women are superior at defense. I believe that is in the psychology of their DNA. Males - hunters going forth. Women - defend the nest. At least since the invention of firearms. Defense does not generally require great physical strength - but rather courage,determination, team work and other combat skills.

Military history seems to support that view of the difference between men and women. Men are superior on attack. Women superior on defense - again since modern weapons. The history of combat between men and women in Russia particularly supports that viewpoint. My opinion. However, any segregation - even on sex - is not PC correct.

So I suppose I'm a leftwinger wanting women in combat roles, but a rightwinger in wanting segregating units based upon sex.