Marine Corps study finds few women in combat in other nations’ militaries

If I hadn't dropped out of high school I would probably be a brain surgeon.

With the exception of a few high tech toys the military is not much different than it was in WWII. But what would I know compared to you since I only spent 20 years in the infantry. You, on the other hand, have the internet.

 

Ali was a boxer, which is different from a fighter.

Martial arts training has its definite value, even moreso if there is full contact sparring involved. But it is inherently limited as causing major disabling injury or receiving major disabling injury is not allowed of course. But that is what real life fighting is about - not about beating up the other person(s) but rather physically disability the other person - usually meaning in ways prohibited in martial arts and full contact training. Rather, only the motions can be taught and rehearsed.

 

You mean sorta like the stuff Rangers do.

 

Hilary Clinton has more time than that in government political service. Clearly she is who to listen to.

So you spent no time in anything but the infantry and therefore claim by your expertise the infantry is what is most essential to the military? That's funny, but a common view of lower rankers, particularly career.

If the infantry has not changed in over half a century its a problem and weakness.

[video=youtube;V9AbeALNVkk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9AbeALNVkk[/video]

Oh, thank you for your service.

 

Didn't someone post what Rangers do is crawl thru mud?

I haven't read of any instances of anyone in the infantry fighting anyone in the Taliban or ISIS in unarmed physical combat in a combat situation. Maybe it was in Panama? Do you have some examples of that occurring?

The Marine squad leader in Afghanistan I referred to said that as soon as out of sight they would shed nearly half the weight of the "crap" required to carry plus some (not all) of the protective body armor as too restrictive, slowing and hot. From his experiences he shifted from vehemently opposing women in combat roles to having no problem with it having actually been in fire fights.

I have yet to read the explanation of how a bullet fired by a female is less lethal than if fired by a male. Enlighten me.

There are certainly some jobs men are inherently better suited for, such as loading and unloading rows of trailers or trucks with heavy items at a dock or airstrip.

The comment about "high tech toys" is naive and foolish. This was not done by the infantry:

 

I was technically in the infantry. I also spent time as a radio operator and intelligence analyst. We were a corp asset so we had a good overview of what was happening. In mission planning I had to coordinate fire support and close air support. I was also proficient in demolition and was a SERE instructor as well as a jumpmaster with over 100 jumps.

- - - Updated - - -

I crawled through a lot of mud. I think most of the infantry fighting someone in the Taliban or ISIS is more like the Indiana Jones scene where he faces the big guy with a sword.

 

Impressive service history for sure. Jumping is plenty dangerous too from what I was told, ironically just a few weeks ago from that female I've posted about. She said that there is an acceptable casualty rate for jumping as it does happen. You'd know if that was accurate or not.

Thanks and well done!

 

Jumping is probably one of the safety things we do. Far more folk killed and injured in vehicle accidents than in jumping accidents. The ride back from the drop zone is the most hazardous part.

 

She is not a jumper so was repeating what some paratrooper has told her. I understand people exaggerate about themselves and their pasts. To the extent I believe someone based on what I otherwise know about the person.

I've been hunting with the Marine so know his nature. I know the female I've written of very well as do many people. Possibly the most impressive and diverse person I know in terms of being goal oriented and for the purpose of developing a diversity of knowledge and skill sets. Before out of high school published in scientific journals, lecturing to PhDs at symposiums, grants from corporations, science fair winner repeatedly and in different categories - as just a few examples. Class president of course. In her first year of college she talked her way into a part time job at a financial counseling, stock broker firm - where the requirement otherwise is a masters degree. She quickly because their #1 seller although just working part time and they offered her royally to remain assuring her she had found her career and was going to become wealthy very quickly. But having obtained the knowledge she was seeking he resigned. She was a supervisor regionally for state agency for a few months, they making her promise she tell no one her actual age or educational level, since otherwise a college degree is required. But having obtained the knowledge she was seeking he resigned.

A growing astonish resume', extreme personal skills and highly skilled at sell herself to - collectively leading to her obtaining any position or goal she pursues. Already having vast academic credentials for her resume, she lacked both military service and technical skills in certain areas in which she had exactly zero knowledge. Less than 2 years later she is somehow an E5 in a combat zone and on combat missions in such technical skills areas, at the same time personnel in that field is being reduced including those with far more seniority. Yet in this too she is not seeking a career. Rather, still more diverse knowledge and skill sets. In her words she didn't know how to change a tire before and now she can diagnose, repair, program and write software for nearly any electronic system - and knows how to change a tire, including massive ones - whatever it takes - and do so under the pressure of being under fire.


It is probably partly genetic and partly conditioning. Her parents are of highly diverse skills and histories, highly successful in diverse ways, and are extreme "helicopter" parents who teach that life is a competition and that in competition one person wins and everyone else lost - and that the pursuant of knowledge and skills is the way to be the most competitively successfully - and that excuses for failure are worthless. They both are not parents who would say "just do you best." Rather, "let's talk about how you are going to win this one too." How to win tactically, inter-personally and by being the best. Powerhouse people. The only point is I tend to believe her because of what I know about her.


That is what is so impressive. She wanted to learn about the financial system, decided the best way to learn is to go work in it, but once the knowledge gained then to move on to developing another collection of knowledge and skills - while having zero interest in a financial career - and she does the same for physical development. In nearly all of these, a year prior she knew nothing about the subject, study or job. She seeks knowledge and skill, experience, diversely. She would not be the typical enlistee, male or female.

I know some other young guys who have joined up recently. More genetic though each have value. Accordingly their assignments and duty areas also are more generic. Know a young woman who joined, daughter of a retired base commander and general. She's lazy as hell. Passed basic somehow and has a do-nothing desk job. Having babies to avoid PT. No surprise there either.

A couple old Vietnam vets I know tell interesting stories, probably with degrees of enhancements. One, infantry/Army said his favorite thing in Vietnam was napalm. Loved napalm. Best weapon we had. He was messed up in the head over Vietnam, senses of guilt but wouldn't explain why. The other says he was a copter pilot, shot down 3 times rotoring down into rice paddies. Said he keep re-enlisting for the money over his parents pleading with him not to. A strange guy in general.

 

This is another way to say if females can't meet the standards, lower the standards.

 

No, it means it is a fraud and the testing and evaluations are false because 100% of men are not perfect nor superior to all women by physical measures. It means DIs are giving men breaks while marking women down, ie cooking the books to get men in and keep women out.

It also questions the legitimacy of CURRENT standards. Contrary to what is being asserted, height, weight, speed, body fat and strength requirements have constantly been changed. SUDDENLY, after nearly two centuries of such changes, old ex military are sobbing that if standards are ever changed to suit enlistees or for health reasons (the two most common reason for changes - the other being having too many trying to enlist and needing reasons for rejection) the entire military is destroyed - meaning they are saying that all prior military leaders setting standards were idiots and that obviously then the USA has lost every war it has ever been in because it did not have current standards. That is how absurd and false the core of this debate is- and it is based essentially on a lie that standards are a constant that are never changed.

For example:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK235960/

In addition, retention standards are lower than for enlistees - so obviously the longer someone is the military the more dangerous to everyone they are and should be booted out for failing to meet the minimal standards for enlisted declared so important that the military and infantry cannot function if it has personnel below enlistment standards. If a Marine, Navy or Army general, col or the USA Chief Of Staff can not meet the standards on 19 years enlistees coming out of basic, they must be kicked out of the military. Afterall, "all Marines are riflemen," all sailors are "firemen," and all Army are infantry.

In short, it is all BS smoke and mirrors in defense of male-superior-egos including those who are fundamentally insecure about women.

 

41,000 women in the US military were deployed in combat zones in the Persian Gulf war. That is why our military got slaughtered and why Saddam Hussein won.

In fact, so far, no one can give any example of women in combat proving a handicap or reason for the lose of any battle or skimish - in ANY country since the invention of the long bow. No, the Navy warship commanded by a woman was not sunk. The only circumstances I know of for any personnel to go AWOL in a combat zone has been men.

Given how many women have been in combat on a small and large scale, certainly ONE example could be found of this causing defeat, failure or of them fleeing. I can find plenty of examples of this for units and personnel who were men.

 

Rethinking your message, what is it that you did in your 20 years related to combat that no woman could possibly be capable of doing - since that's your point, isn't it?

 

How about the hundreds of women who had to be returned stateside because they were knocked up?

 

No woman? Pee standing up?

Women in the military make it less efficient not more efficient. Take fifty men and fifty women, pick 'em at random. Have 'em fight it out. Which side do you figure will win? That is what the military does, kill folks and break things. Adding a few women to the mix greatly complicates logistics. Now you need twice as much of everything, restrooms, uniforms. You have additional problems like Joe Tentpeg raping Susie Footlocker. Now Susie is knocked up. What to do with her?

Women fighter pilots have already proven to be a waste of oxygen.

 

So if women don't perform as well as men, the standards are fraudulent?

I'm sorry, but you are really being ridiculous. This is an argument that would require a doctorate in wyman's studies to take seriously.

 

The attrition rate in Ranger school for men is about 50%.

 

Keep searching. What about all the men who not only have to be dishonorably discharged but also imprisoned for sexual assault including against civilians? How expensive is that? VERY rare with women.

 

If 100% of all men pass and 100% of all women fail, per se it is a fraud. There some really whimpy ass men.



So you claim he 100% absolutely could meet Special Forces or Ranger standards AND he is tougher than any female? Superman in disguise?

 

Rangers are not the only military personnel in combat. You didn't answer my question of what did you do in your 20 years in the infantry that was actually involved in any combat related matter that no female could have performed?

In all these every 2-3 months threads started about how military men claim women can not fill any combat role, no one has ever been able to give even 1 instance of any skirmish or battle lost or significantly handicapped due to women in combat - though women have been in combat for the USA and numerous other countries for decades. These debates are about male-ego claiming battles are still fought with axes and swords to prove their superiority slogans - without a single instance to back it up. I could present likely hundreds of instances of men in combat going AWOL individually, large scale desertion by men in combat and men surrendering when ordered not to in combat, plus men cracking up in combat.

 

The military does far more than kill and break things, and not 1/100th of 1% of the time do they do this with their bare hands. That's just a slogan that Huckabee likes to say alot.

What do we with do with Joe Tentpeg the rapist? Susie Footlocker can get an abortion in the usually-not per-chance she does get pregnant.

Candidly, I think that all women in combat roles and many other positions should be required to be on protracted period of time (many months to a couple of years per injection) birth control. This would eliminate the problem of women getting pregnant to get out of the service or getting easy detail. I see no civil rights issue nor would federal courts block it since it is the military and the military requires all sorts of medical procedures, injections etc some personnel do not want. The military does not even ask, just does it.

Do you agree with that in many to most roles women in military service hold that it would be a good idea to require they be on birth control - unless obtaining an specific personal exemption? The long term birth control is 99+% effective and there is no "I forgot to take the pill" potential either.

But Joe Tentpeg the rapist? All the training expenses wasted, dishonorable discharge, the huge cost of prison and a black eye for the military too. If Joe is a rapist, he's going to rape whether a female civilian or female in uniform. There also is the problem-costs-lose of Joe Tentpegs who rapes American civilians and civilians of other countries he is stationed in or in combat in. There are no claims of American female military personnel raping civil populations their country has conquered or invaded, including when the USA is the invader/conquerer. Can you even find an instance of a female military personnel raping men in the military, civilian men, or men of other countries they are stationed in?

The "rape" argue doesn't work for you, and could be basis to claim the military should be all female.

Explain how it would require twice as many uniforms or restrooms for women? Do men have 1 uniform working different shifts that they then share that one uniform between them? What is the difference between a male toilet and a female toilet? You're searching rather hard. It takes exactly the same number of uniforms either way, doesn't it?

You should stick to the only basis for claiming men are superior - that men can develop more muscle mass. That's it. All the rest, if really looked at, works against your stance.

 

I went through Ranger School in 58 days when I was 36. The two superfit, hand selected and trained up, just out of West Point took . . . wait for it. . . 6 months and 3 recycles. That's what men can do that women can't. If these (*)(*)(*)(*)s had been men they would have been gone after the first recycle. Most don't get the option of one recycle.

For your amusement another video of what a woman can do against a man: [video]https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video;_ylt=A2KIo.DUBFZYlCUAjIX 7w8QF;_ylu=X3oDMTBncGdyMzQ0BHN lYwNzZWFyY2gEdnRpZAM-;_ylc=X1MDOTY3ODEzMDcEX3IDMgRh Y3RuA2NsawRiY2sDZmVvOTQ3bGMxdW gyOSUyNmIlM0Q0JTI2ZCUzRHJaQUNt WXBwWUVJS1l3X3BGamI0cnctLSUyNn MlM0Q5ciUyNmklM0RINVJBdDU2RnpM SnZZNm9nVm5zSARjc3JjcHZpZAMwVF M0bHpZekxqTDNZU1E5V0I5RVNRSVpN VGN6TGdBQUFBQ0xPUFloBGZyA3lmcC 10BGZyMgNzYS1ncARncHJpZAN0dS5C eVVxN1QwNlQxZjZDREN6S29BBG10ZX N0aWQDbnVsbARuX3JzbHQDMTMEbl9z dWdnAzAEb3JpZ2luA3ZpZGVvLnNlYX JjaC55YWhvby5jb20EcG9zAzAEcHFz dHIDBHBxc3RybAMEcXN0cmwDMzMEcX VlcnkDKyJtYXJpbmUiICsia25vY2tz IG91dCIgKyJmZW1hbGUiBHRfc3RtcA MxNDgyMDMyNDE3BHZ0ZXN0aWQDbnVs bA--?gprid=tu.ByUq7T06T1f6CDCzKoA&pvid=0TS4lzYzLjL3YSQ9WB9ESQIZM TczLgAAAACLOPYh&p=%2B%22marine%22+%2B%22knocks +out%22+%2B%22female%22&ei=UTF-8&fr2=p%3As%2Cv%3Av%2Cm%3Asa&fr=yfp-t#id=1&vid=16e275127199a4e747da5f3123 8523f8&action=view[/video]

 

You're now being evasive of any subject or issue I raise.

Sorry, I don't search out or watch videos of men beating up women. It sets me off in a way I came to be able to mostly control some years ago. Men who hurt children or women set me off in very real and reactive ways. Granted, an agreed boxing match would be different, but still I would take no pleasure, find no humor and it would bother me watching a man beating a woman. I saw (and heard) many women and children beaten - and far worst - often in my childhood and youth.

Besides, someone already posted it and I do not believe the caption of it (I stopped watching once I saw the initial caption, meaning 2 seconds). In my opinion that video proves exactly nothing and has no relevancy whatsoever to any combat role anyone in the military might serve in. If you can tell me ANY instance, ever, of anyone in the USA military being in a boxing fight with any adversary in the First Gulf War, Second Gulf War, Afghanistan or anywhere else in the last half century present it. Otherwise, there is absolutely zero relevancy to anything, other than possibly you are certain you and other men can beat up any female he wants to if he wanted to (not in the slightest suggesting you would or do of course.)

The ability to beat women does not make men superior nor make men superior in military combat roles. Maybe I'm wrong. Are Rangers taught the situations where they should violent beat women in other countries when it is a combat zone? Is that part of Ranger training?

PS. 36 seems on the old-side for Ranger school, though maybe that is the norm? If you interpret anything I post as discrediting you or downgrading your efforts, abilities and history please understand I am not.

 

It was very old. The female in the video said she could lick any Marine on the base. Didn't work out. They tested integrated Marine squads against all male squads. The all male units performed better in every way. Bottom line, the military is better off without women. I guess we could adapt the military to be more inclusive, all midget units, a few blind soldiers couldn't hurt. Rush Limbaugh had a good idea, PMS battalions. Talk about shock troops!

 

Does she say in the video that she can beat up any man? Or is it that you believe anything anyone says in a video caption?

The topic isn't midgets or blind people, is it? You refuse to actually debate this topic either from your personal relevant-to-actual-battle personal experiences nor have any example from anywhere in the world backing up your claims as having actually ever occurred.The reason seems obvious. You have not response that does not defeat what you are claiming in slogans - increasingly sneering at women in general diversionary slogans.

What makes sense is that men do not want women capable to compete for enlist, rank advancement nor any post-service VA benefits. "Everything for me and nothing for you so I have more" isn't a rare perspective for someone to have, nor is "I was born superior to you" as a person's claim to importance.

I can't find examples of countries that have women in combat roles ever losing a war, at least not since the invention of the long bow. Certainly can find plenty of instances of militaries that do not have women in combat roles losing. Maybe opposing women in combat roles in the USA really is due to some new PC-enlightenment hatred of the USA and an internal by maybe not recognized desire for the USA to be militarily defeated and destroyed, plus attitudes shared by the men of ISIS and the Taliban.