Obama’s Military Purge

[delayjf]

I know the Liberals got a good laugh regarding the issue with the unisex military covers for the Marine Corps. I was angry as I saw it as another liberal attack on the military and its traditions, akin to the issues of gays in the military and women in ground combat positions. I was always a bit sanguine as to why their seemed to be very little resistance coming from with the ranks in response to the direction Obama was taking the Military. Reading the article below, I now have a good understand why.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/purge-surge-obama-fires-another-commander/

[woodtoo]

Doesn't seem to see eye to eye with the military does he,sure they'd like to purge the WH.

[Robert Goren]

He had ought to purge the military. It is top heavy with leaders earn their rank by being the right place at the right time , not by showing leadership. A Vice Admiral who second in command at SAC was recently removed from duty for all things counterfeiting poker chips. I could have made that up if I had worked on it for months. This I am afraid is says a lot about the military leadership today. How could such a person get to a position of that power.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2439444/Strategic-Commands-Tim-Giardina-suspended-gambling-counterfeited-chips.html
His history
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/bios/navybio.asp?bioID=121
This history reads like half the Pentagon unfortunately. The military is ripe with generals and admirals who keep proving the Peter Principle over and over again.

[LottaKash]

This I am afraid is says a lot about the military leadership today. How could such a person get to a position of that power.
.

I thought the same thing about Obama....And Yikes !...He is in charge of the military now....

Not that he isn't a military genius or anything ....:rolleyes:

[BlueShoe]

http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/purge-surge-obama-fires-another-commander/
This is very scary stuff, was only aware of a little of it. Socializing with generals and admirals is way above my pay grade. However, have met a few career NCOs, and those that will talk off the record say that, rather than being forced out, some are leaving the service on their own, out of disgust at the social engineering of the Obama administration. Being forced to accept openly gays and women in jobs they were not meant for is too much for some of these older non coms. Heard more than one tale of the awful effect that the women have had on morale, disipline, and combat efficiency. Losing your top leaders wearing stars, plus seeing senior NCOs leaving as well, does not bode well for our national defense obligations.

[FantasticDan]

However, have met a few career NCOs, and those that will talk off the record say that, rather than being forced out, some are leaving the service on their own, out of disgust at the social engineering of the Obama administration. Being forced to accept openly gays and women in jobs they were not meant for is too much for some of these older non coms.You got that straight. It was bad enough when they integrated blacks, but gays and women too? It's just too much for an old non com to take. Goddamn Obama. :ThmbDown:

[Tom]

Our military is not a social experiment.
Don't ask, don't tell...come on, that was a policy?
Talk about pissing with your zipper up! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[delayjf]

You got that straight. It was bad enough when they integrated blacks, but gays and women too? It's just too much for an old non com to take. Goddamn Obama.

Hardly the same thing. People can move beyond racial prejudice, but you mix 18 and 19 year olds together and you will always get sex and relationships and all the jealousies and drama that go with them - and that will never change.

It would be one thing to say if women can meet the current physical standards of being a Navy seal than they can be a Navy seal. But that's not what is going on. The current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is on the record stating that he would question any current physical requirement that exceeds women's abilities.

Gays bring in a whole new dynamic and a whole new unique set of problems. None of which enhances our military capability.

Congratulations Obama - you've weakened a country today.

[FantasticDan]

Gays bring in a whole new dynamic and a whole new unique set of problems. None of which enhances our military capability.The Brits seem to handle it fine.. :ThmbUp:
ol5Dfs7jqFI

[classhandicapper]

When I was young I used to think we should have an all gay and female military. That way the risk of me being drafted to fight and die in someone else's war would be zero and I wouldn't have to hear the incessant whining about this issue from liberals anymore. :lol:

[delayjf]

The Brits seem to handle it fine..

Not sure what you mean by fine. I'd be willing to bet anything the Brits have their own issues, like our Military, there are a lot of things that go on that are never reported or kept off the record for political reasons.

[Robert Goren]

Hardly the same thing. People can move beyond racial prejudice, but you mix 18 and 19 year olds together and you will always get sex and relationships and all the jealousies and drama that go with them - and that will never change.

It would be one thing to say if women can meet the current physical standards of being a Navy seal than they can be a Navy seal. But that's not what is going on. The current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is on the record stating that he would question any current physical requirement that exceeds women's abilities.

Gays bring in a whole new dynamic and a whole new unique set of problems. None of which enhances our military capability.

Congratulations Obama - you've weakened a country today.They said the same thing about women in every line work they have entered recently including cops and firefighters. I say if a female nurse can move a 350 pound man like my brother's father-in -law, they can do anything. It is a BS argument by a sexist.
I am not buying the argument about gays either. If there was a gay in the unit under "don't tell" I am pretty sure all the members of that unit knew about it. Many a fine soldier was lost when for some reason, he was outed or came out. I constantly amazed how stupid arguments the bigots can come up with to prevent something from happening and how often otherwise reasonable people fall for them.
It is this kind of thinking by the Joint Chief that has hurt our military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. This one more reason to purge the bad generals and admirals from positions of leadership in the military. Our country can no longer afford to have such backward thinking people in military leadership roles.

[BlueShoe]

They said the same thing about women in every line work they have entered recently including cops and firefighters. I say if a female nurse can move a 350 pound man like my brother's father-in -law, they can do anything. It is a BS argument by a sexist.
No they cannot, and no it is not. It is simple biology and psychology. If you have a dispute or arguement about that, take it up with your Creator. The average female military recruit has only half the upper body strength than does her male counterpoint. She does a little better on lower body strength, two thirds as well as the guys. This is not remotely good enough. She is not as well suited emotionally for military service as are the men, let alone to be able to bear up under the constant terror of being in combat.

[FantasticDan]

She is not as well suited emotionally for military service as are the men, let alone to be able to bear up under the constant terror of being in combat.Well said BlueShoe, those women sure do lack emotional fortitude, much in the same way your average negro lacks intelligence and the necessary courage to be an effective soldier (referring here of course to 19th and 20th century arguments). Altho, in the case of women, I'd make an exception for when she's on the rag, then she should be moved up to the front lines immediately due to increased levels of aggression and combativeness. :mad: :rolleyes:

[Tom]

Do women have to meet the EXACT same requirements as men do?
I don't know, but if they don';t them it is a sham.

I will defer to our military guys to decide - it they who will be putting their lives in the hands of other troops. I suspect no one's opinion counts except for theirs.

[BlueShoe]

Well said BlueShoe, those women sure do lack emotional fortitude, much in the same way your average negro lacks intelligence and the necessary courage to be an effective soldier (referring here of course to 19th and 20th century arguments). Altho, in the case of women, I'd make an exception for when she's on the rag, then she should be moved up to the front lines immediately due to increased levels of aggression and combativeness. :mad: :rolleyes:
For you lefties everything still comes down to race and gender, rather than practicality, it never changes, does it? The patriotism, dedication to service, technical skills, or personal courage of our women armed forces members is not being doubted or challenged. Their physical and emotional ability to withstand the rigors of military service in general, and combat in particular, is.

Tell you what, Danny, why dont we listen to the opinion of someone far more qualified than you or I, or anyone else on this forum, to comment on this issue, a person that has been there, and done that? Marine Captain Petronio is a combat veteran with tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Perhaps we should heed what the Captain has to say.
www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal (http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal)

[FantasticDan]

The patriotism, dedication to service, technical skills, or personal courage of our women armed forces members is not being doubted or challenged. Their physical and emotional ability to withstand the rigors of military service in general, and combat in particular, is.If they pass the physical standards to qualify for whatever duty in question, who are you (or anyone) to tell them that they aren't fit or strong enough? And where does this "emotional" issue you have fit in? Why aren't women as emotionally tough as men?

[Robert Goren]

For you lefties everything still comes down to race and gender, rather than practicality, it never changes, does it? The patriotism, dedication to service, technical skills, or personal courage of our women armed forces members is not being doubted or challenged. Their physical and emotional ability to withstand the rigors of military service in general, and combat in particular, is.

Tell you what, Danny, why dont we listen to the opinion of someone far more qualified than you or I, or anyone else on this forum, to comment on this issue, a person that has been there, and done that? Marine Captain Petronio is a combat veteran with tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Perhaps we should heed what the Captain has to say.
www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal (http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal) It is you on the right who are hung up on race, gender and sexual orientation. We on the on the left believe that innate talent isn't limited by those things. We don't exclude anybody because of their race, gender or sexual orientation nor do we believe that just because some bigot might be upset because he has work along side somebody he hates is a good reason to exclude somebody.

[Robert Goren]

Do women have to meet the EXACT same requirements as men do?
I don't know, but if they don';t them it is a sham.

I will defer to our military guys to decide - it they who will be putting their lives in the hands of other troops. I suspect no one's opinion counts except for theirs. The military fought the integration of blacks into the Military tooth and nail. The liberal presidents like FDR and Truman stood up to the Military who used the very arguments that they are using today and said bullshit. The country is a lot stronger because they did.

[LottaKash]

I can usually tell the ones that have never been in Military Service, and especially the ones, that have never seen Combat....:cool:...which is just another word for "insanity"...

[classhandicapper]

I can't believe we actually argue about some of these things.

I'm 5' 5" tall. I weight about 145 pounds.

When I was young, there were rules against someone like me becoming a police officer or fireman in NY because of my height, probably lack of strength, lack of intimidating presence etc...

I think those were LOGICAL RULES!

Someone like me should probably NOT be a policeman or fireman. I wouldn't want my own life dependent on someone like me if I was another cop, fireman, or a citizen. In either case, I'd want the biggest, strongest, most intimidating cop or fireman I could have. So would most other people because it makes FREAKING SENSE.

If you want to argue that if someone like me or some woman can pass all the physical and psychological tests they should be allowed to become cops and firemen, I can't argue with that. But in no way should we ever be encouraging it, changing the standards to try to promote diversity or help women, establishing quotas etc... That's so idiotic it doesn't even deserve debate.

It should be the same for everything.

It should be merit based with strict standards defined by the real needs of the job. In this case, the bigger and stronger the better.

I mean what's next, should be have 200 pound, 6' 5", jockeys because we can't discriminate?

[LottaKash]

The current "Military Purge" is not about race or gender....

Funny how this thread got deflected from the "real reasons" why BO is cleaning house...

[PaceAdvantage]

I think we should require Los Alamos National Lab to hire people who have flunked out of community college to work on the newest nuclear weapons technologies...because hey, we have to be diverse. Everyone deserves a chance. Everyone deserves a trophy!

Someone please tell me the difference between what I wrote above and what you all are "debating" here.

Nobody is saying a woman who can pass the same tests as men should be banned from performing the same tasks as men in the military.

But when you go and LOWER THE BAR on these tests so that more women can pass, that's when you get into trouble.

It would be like lowering the qualifications to be a nuclear scientist. Would you trust a low-intelligence individual to work in a high-level technical/scientific position inside a nuclear power plant? No, you would not.

Would you favor lowering the standards of hiring at a Nuke plant so that people of very low intelligence can have the opportunity to work there?

Of course you wouldn't.

[classhandicapper]

On things like gays and blacks, IMO it's not logical to use the military as part of a social experiment in integration.

There probably was a time in this country decades ago where it actually was a horrible idea to mix black and white troops because it created problems that were a distraction to order, discipline, cohesiveness, etc... and lowered the effectiveness of the unit. That was the reality vs. the idealistic goal.

When it ceased to be a significant problem in society in general, then there was no problem integrating the forces.

The same is true with gays in the military now.

When you want to know if the time is right, you ask the military leaders that actually know. If they say "yes", you go ahead. If they say "not yet", then you don't. You wait until the time is right.

You don't ram your idealism down the throats of the military if it's going to weaken the effectiveness of the institution.

[classhandicapper]

The current "Military Purge" is not about race or gender....

Funny how this thread got deflected from the "real reasons" why BO is cleaning house...


The "real" reason is too scary to ponder, assuming I am thinking about what you are talking about.

I read somewhere that they asked military personnel if the president gave a direct order to fire on citizens would you do it. Anyone that said "no" was immediately in trouble.

If that is all true, then even asking that question scares the shit out of me about these lunatics in Washington.

[delayjf]

It is this kind of thinking by the Joint Chief that has hurt our military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan
Exactly how has excluding women from Infantry / Elite units hurt our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan?
I say if a female nurse can move a 350 pound man like my brother's father-in -law, they can do anything. It is a BS argument by a sexist. I constantly amazed how stupid arguments the bigots can come up with to prevent something from happening and how often otherwise reasonable people fall for them.
I base my position on experience and physiological fact; I’m amazed how Liberals are so hair triggered quick with their magnanimous proclamations of equality and acceptance – to the point that they lose touch with reality and common sense.
Many a fine soldier was lost when for some reason; he was outed or came out.
Many a “fine” soldier has used their “confession” as a get out of the military free card. We will never know how many were actually gay or simply wanted out of the service.
If there was a gay in the unit under "don't tell" I am pretty sure all the members of that unit knew about it.
How can you be sure of that? Unless that individual came on to someone or confessed there’s a good chance nobody would know. Effeminate recruits – gay or straight are weeded out at boot camp. I have no numbers but I would be willing to bet that the majority of gays serving in the military are women.

And speaking of BS, I raise the BS flag regarding a woman moving a 350 lb man. But, assuming it’s true. I would also be interested in knowing how big this woman was, as I’m sure she would not be within military height – weight standards. That said what percent of women can move a 200lb man let alone a 350lb man? And given that reality, are you really willing to put women in combat knowing their physical Limitations, all based on an extremely rare exception?

Pointing out that women are not as strong as men may make me a sexist in your eyes, but I happen to be right. Lowering the standards to allow women into ground combat and elite military units may satisfy Liberals and their warped sense of equality – but you are seriously going to get people killed.

[FantasticDan]

I read somewhere that they asked military personnel if the president gave a direct order to fire on citizens would you do it. Anyone that said "no" was immediately in trouble.Sorry to direct you to a liberal commie website, but.....

http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/citizens.asp

[FantasticDan]

Nobody is saying a woman who can pass the same tests as men should be banned from performing the same tasks as men in the military.They aren't? Read some of Blueshoe's posts today. Women don't have what it takes emotionally, didn't you know?

But when you go and LOWER THE BAR on these tests so that more women can pass, that's when you get into trouble.No bars have been lowered. The women don't even want them lowered.

http://www.businessinsider.com/military-women-do-not-lower-standards-for-us-2013-2

[BlueShoe]

The "real" reason is too scary to ponder, assuming I am thinking about what you are talking about.

I read somewhere that they asked military personnel if the president gave a direct order to fire on citizens would you do it. Anyone that said "no" was immediately in trouble.

If that is all true, then even asking that question scares the shit out of me about these lunatics in Washington.
There is an organization that has many members of the armed forces that addresses this issue, the Oathkeepers. The lefties have claimed that it is a right wing fringe group, which it most definitely is not. Do we all recall Sgt. Stein, the Marine that made the mistake of speaking out about not obeying unlawful orders, which got him kicked out of the Corps?
www.oathkeepers.org/oath/ (http://www.oathkeepers.org/oath/)

[FantasticDan]

There is an organization that has many members of the armed forces that addresses this issue, the Oathkeepers. The lefties have claimed that it is a right wing fringe group, which it most definitely is not.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/03/oath-keepers

In Pray's estimate, it might not be long (months, perhaps a year) before President Obama finds some pretext—a pandemic, a natural disaster, a terror attack—to impose martial law, ban interstate travel, and begin detaining citizens en masse. One of his fellow Oath Keepers, a former infantryman, advised me to prepare a "bug out" bag with 39 items including gas masks, ammo, and water purification tablets, so that I'd be ready to go "when the shit hits the fan."

Right on target, eh BlueShoe? :ThmbUp:

[LottaKash]

The "real" reason is too scary to ponder, assuming I am thinking about what you are talking about.

I read somewhere that they asked military personnel if the president gave a direct order to fire on citizens would you do it. Anyone that said "no" was immediately in trouble.

If that is all true, then even asking that question scares the shit out of me about these lunatics in Washington.

You nailed it Class....

This tactic was used as a precursor to "every" tyrannical government that ever came along...

Those who cannot see this, are either clueless, or that is what they want...

I have been watching closely, and several truck drivers have reported that "trailer loads" of Marshall Law signs are flying out of the warehouses and into the military installations thruout the US...

Boston was a dress rehearsal....:eek: ...Just a matter of time now, imo..

[BlueShoe]

They aren't? Read some of Blueshoe's posts today. Women don't have what it takes emotionally, didn't you know? Did you and Bobby G bother to follow the link and read Capt. Petronio's opinions? Yes, I know, the article is long, and liberals are unable to concentrate for long, but you might try. :rolleyes: Here is a young woman in superb physical condition, an accomplished athlete, and an experienced officer. When she says that women cannot hack it and should not be placed in combat roles, we should listen. You think that the PTSD rate is high for males that have been in combat? It would go through the roof for females if we place them in permanent combat slots.

I am well aware that some women have performed very well in brief, intense fire fights, such as your convoy being hit by the bad guys, things of that nature. I am aware that the combat zone in Iraq and Afghanistan is "Everywhere." The key word is brief, it is not the same as a permanent assignment where your primary function is to fight the bad guys.

[BlueShoe]

Right on target, eh BlueShoe? :ThmbUp:
You got it Danny. :ThmbUp: So far today you have not even been able to locate the firing range, let alone get off a shot that hits anything.

[Striker]

They aren't? Read some of Blueshoe's posts today. Women don't have what it takes emotionally, didn't you know?

No bars have been lowered. The women don't even want them lowered.

http://www.businessinsider.com/military-women-do-not-lower-standards-for-us-2013-2
Don't forget that alot of women in the military have tattoos, so they are also tramps according to BS.


http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=107975&page=4&pp=15

[classhandicapper]

Sorry to direct you to a liberal commie website, but.....

http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/citizens.asp

Well, first there were no denials there and I wouldn't expect the mainstream media to report on it. The US mainstream media is probably the least reliable source of information in the world. I don't even get my financial information on the US from US sources.

What we do know is that Homeland Security is arming itself on a massive scale and the administration has been simultaneously in favor of disarming citizens and using health care providers to gain information that will help justify that on a case by case basis.

When it looks like a duck, acts like duck, quacks like a duck, most people will start thinking it's a duck even if it's actually a turkey.

There's no way I'd trust a single freaking word out of the mouth of this president, any member of his administration, any member of congress that support them, or any left leaning news organization.

I don't feel that way because I disagree with their politics. It's because I think the are horrible, immoral, despicable, evil human beings. To be clear, I feel that way about a lot of republicans and some right wing press also, but it's not nearly as bad or unanimous.

[classhandicapper]

They aren't? Read some of Blueshoe's posts today. Women don't have what it takes emotionally, didn't you know?

No bars have been lowered. The women don't even want them lowered.

http://www.businessinsider.com/military-women-do-not-lower-standards-for-us-2013-2

What it's saying there is that they don't want different standards for men and women.

It's not saying that the standards are currently as high as they used to be, that the standards will be kept the same long term, or that there won't be some kind of affirmative action where if 2 candidates qualify but the man is superior, they'll sometimes go with the woman.

This has to be entirely based on merit with the strictest possible standards.

If it's not, I'm against it.

[Quagmire]

I have been watching closely, and several truck drivers have reported that "trailer loads" of Marshall Law signs are flying out of the warehouses and into the military installations thruout the US...

Boston was a dress rehearsal....:eek: ...Just a matter of time now, imo..


As long as they weren't Martial Law signs you have nothing to worry about.

[Robert Goren]

I think we should require Los Alamos National Lab to hire people who have flunked out of community college to work on the newest nuclear weapons technologies...because hey, we have to be diverse. Everyone deserves a chance. Everyone deserves a trophy!

Someone please tell me the difference between what I wrote above and what you all are "debating" here.

Nobody is saying a woman who can pass the same tests as men should be banned from performing the same tasks as men in the military.

But when you go and LOWER THE BAR on these tests so that more women can pass, that's when you get into trouble.

It would be like lowering the qualifications to be a nuclear scientist. Would you trust a low-intelligence individual to work in a high-level technical/scientific position inside a nuclear power plant? No, you would not.

Would you favor lowering the standards of hiring at a Nuke plant so that people of very low intelligence can have the opportunity to work there?

Of course you wouldn't.But that is exactly what we been doing by barring women and gays from serving. We have been taking lesser qualified people because they are male and straight.

[LottaKash]

As long as they weren't Martial Law signs you have nothing to worry about.

HaHa, finally caught that faux pas... Thik as a brik todae...:jump:

[delayjf]

We have been taking lesser qualified people because they are male and straight.

What do you base the above statement on? If women can't perform on the same level physically - how are they superior?

[Tom]

But that is exactly what we been doing by barring women and gays from serving. We have been taking lesser qualified people because they are male and straight.

That is not a logical conclusion and I doubt you could prove it.

[JustRalph]

Goren, there were many many gays serving in the military before they were officially allowed to be public. 99% of them had no problems.

[Robert Goren]

Goren, there were many many gays serving in the military before they were officially allowed to be public. 99% of them had no problems.Then there should no problem allowing them serve legally.

[PaceAdvantage]

Sorry to direct you to a liberal commie website, but.....

http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/citizens.aspThis may shock you, but I was just going to write essentially the same thing that snopes did. That we've been hearing essentially the same conspiracy about Marshall law, concentration camps, etc, etc, etc, for as long as there has been an internet...

[delayjf]

Then there should no problem allowing them serve legally.

Don't ask don't tell did exactly that.

[delayjf]

Do women have to meet the EXACT same requirements as men do?
I don't know, but if they don';t them it is a sham.

Sometimes the physical standards are not indicative of being able to perform in the field.

Here is one example that I have firsthand knowledge of.

When I went thru OCS, we had a platoon of female candidates in our OCS class. One of the candidates was an outstanding runner. She actually ran track in college and I was told she tried out for the US Olympic team - she was capable of running a 18 minute 3 mile run – which will get you a maximum score on THE run portion of the PFT FOR MEN. She was a faster runner that about ½ of the men in our OCS class, including me. My fastest time was 19 minutes. Those who favor women in ground combat roles would point to that as proof that women are as physically qualified as men and should be allowed to serve in the Infantry and special forces units. However; when it came to forced marches (humps), where you have to carry a full combat load (60-70 pounds) at a quick march for anywhere from 5 miles to 25 miles – she always fell out and never completed the hump. Which was the case with almost all the female candidates. The last hump we did was a 25 mile road march, and all the female candidates fell out – and they were not carrying anything. Some of them could have completed the hump with no combat load but were so beat up by the other humps and physical activity of training they were not able. In fairness, there were some men who fell out as well, but it was due to their own injuries and not their innate ability to finish the hump. If you were male candidate and constantly falling out of humps you were not around long.

So which physical activity is a better indicator of ground combat capability a three mile run or a 10 mile hump? Obviously it’s the 10 mile hump. Throw in rugged terrain, like the mountains of Afganistan and the task get a lot harder. And by the way, combat loads can get heavier that the standard 60-70 pounds. For example, mortar platoons are notorious for their ability to carry heavy loads.

[LottaKash]

......etc, etc, etc, for as long as there has been an internet...

Since tho, there have been way too many "etceteras" for me, and for so many others as well, to just simply ignore them...

"Ignorance is Bliss"... for now....I guess...

[BlueShoe]

Don't forget that alot of women in the military have tattoos, so they are also tramps according to BS.
Unfortunately for our military readiness, many of the women are just that, tramps, tattoos or not. If they were not before they joined, some become tramps later. When you place men and women in very close proximity for long periods of time there are going to be relationships. That means pregnancies, broken marriages, and severe disipline and morale problems, which affects efficiency. The pregnancy rate among military women is awful, and the number of rapes is horrible, an issue that has gathered attention and publicity recently.

There is said to be a bad joke circulating around the Navy about how things are now on ships at sea. Lights out is at 2200. Instead of sounding taps, they are are now instead playing the theme song from the old TV show "The Love Boat." :rolleyes:

[delayjf]

When they first started integrating women onto ships, I asked a Navy Captain who just got back from a float how it went. He told me they had to send every woman initially assigned to his ship home due to pregnancy.

And this issue was not just confined to enlisted female sailors. the PR officer who gave had to brief the entire ship regarding fratization was herself busted in a hotel room on one port call - with several enlisted sailors. It got so bad in the Navy that they wanted to mandate pregnancy testing for female sailors prior to leaving port, but pressure from Senators like Feinstein and Boxer got the Navy to drop the policy.

When I was in Somalia, we sent home 40 female marines home due to pregnancy.

[classhandicapper]

This may shock you, but I was just going to write essentially the same thing that snopes did. That we've been hearing essentially the same conspiracy about Marshall law, concentration camps, etc, etc, etc, for as long as there has been an internet...

I view this issue kind of like I view the health warning on a cigarette label.

You can tell someone they are likely to eventually have health issues if they keep smoking, but be quite wrong about it for decades before it finally catches up with them and you are right.

No one is going to declare martial law unless there is a crisis. The problem is, the path we are on now will eventually lead to a financial crisis and possible currency collapse that will make 2008 and possibly even the 30s look like child's play.

Enough people understand that (including people that were previously part of the government that are free to speak now) that is raises questions about why the government is so anxious to arm itself domestically and disarm its citizens.

You see, if I was in government and I knew what I know, I'd be worried about how the citizens of my country might react to banks closing their doors, runaway inflation wiping out the purchasing power their savings and pensions etc.... So I'd be arming myself, disarming them, and looking for every possible way to have some chance of keeping control when the shit hits the fan.

These theories are not coming from nuts.

They are coming from people that understand the current financial conditions and long term risks. Those people are doing some forward looking thinking in case we don't get our act together and the worst case scenario comes to pass.

The nuts are the people that don't understand any of it and are just going along.

[FantasticDan]

These four life-takers and heart-breakers are the first women to complete the Marine Corps' infantry combat training regimen :ThmbUp:

http://gawker.com/the-first-four-women-to-pass-marine-infantry-training-t-1468141089?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_twitter&utm_source=gawker_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

[delayjf]

Well Dan, in this case its a matter of "if you don't meet the standard - lower the standard"

http://cmrlink.org/content/home/37313/double_think_and_dissembling_about_double_standard s_in_combat

The British conducted the same kind of studies by integrating women into infantry units a few years back - two years later they concluded the experiment a failure, and abandoned the policy.

Its a common myth amoung those who support women in combat that other countries like Israel use women in infantry units, but its not true, they are used in support units not infantry units. The US is the only country trying to do this. I salute their spirit and patriotism, but I pray those young women never make it to combat.

One other thing, according to the article, in the near future women will not have a choice as to if they don't want to join and infantry unit, they will be forced. Bad idea. but you know progressives - they think they are smarter than everyone else.

[Robert Goren]

When they first started integrating women onto ships, I asked a Navy Captain who just got back from a float how it went. He told me they had to send every woman initially assigned to his ship home due to pregnancy.

And this issue was not just confined to enlisted female sailors. the PR officer who gave had to brief the entire ship regarding fratization was herself busted in a hotel room on one port call - with several enlisted sailors. It got so bad in the Navy that they wanted to mandate pregnancy testing for female sailors prior to leaving port, but pressure from Senators like Feinstein and Boxer got the Navy to drop the policy.

When I was in Somalia, we sent home 40 female marines home due to pregnancy.Did they send the men home who got them pregnant?

[Tom]

Did they send the men home who got them pregnant?

Holy Moly! :faint:

[ronsmac]

Did they send the men home who got them pregnant?
In theory they should have received discipline based on non fraternization rules, but who knows if they did or not? When I was in the navy women couldn't serve on combatants but were allowed to serve on support ships, tenders, etc. Even on the tenders and at shore stations a number did get pregnant by but I don't recall any discipline for the male sailors.

[delayjf]

Did they send the men home who got them pregnant?
To my knowledge no. But to do so would only make a bad situation worse, because now you have to replace 2 individuals. How would you like to be the lucky Sailor that gets called into the CO office and informed that even though you just got back from a float months ago, you were going back out, so pack your bags.

I can tell you that the Navy initially wanted to discipline women who got pregnant while deployed, with a letter of reprimand in there service recorded. But I believe Feinstein and other female legislators put the stop to that.

[BlueShoe]

This is not new, almost two years old, but when it first came out, was stunned. Could not believe the total stupidity of such an asinine thing. An extreme example of just far social engineering by the Obama administration has come. According to what I was able to gather, at first a few men flat refused to participate, and only did so under the threat of disiplinary action which would have led to the loss of stripes.
www.stripes.com/news/army/soldiers-don-fake-belly-breasts-to-better-understand-pregnant-troops-exercise-concerns-1.168786 (http://www.stripes.com/news/army/soldiers-don-fake-belly-breasts-to-better-understand-pregnant-troops-exercise-concerns-1.168786)

[Greyfox]

This is not new, almost two years old, but when it first came out, was stunned. Could not believe the total stupidity of such an asinine thing. An extreme example of just far social engineering by the Obama administration has come. According to what I was able to gather, at first a few men flat refused to participate, and only did so under the threat of disiplinary action which would have led to the loss of stripes.
www.stripes.com/news/army/soldiers-don-fake-belly-breasts-to-better-understand-pregnant-troops-exercise-concerns-1.168786 (http://www.stripes.com/news/army/soldiers-don-fake-belly-breasts-to-better-understand-pregnant-troops-exercise-concerns-1.168786)

That article represents the height of stupidity. Or can it get worse than that?

[FantasticDan]

This is not new, almost two years old, but when it first came out, was stunned. Could not believe the total stupidity of such an asinine thing. An extreme example of just far social engineering by the Obama administration has come.The program began in 2008. Presidential candidate Obama probably forced it on the military :jump: :mad:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/17/army-has-soldiers-wear-pregnancy-suits-in-training-course/

[boxcar]

This is very scary stuff, was only aware of a little of it. Socializing with generals and admirals is way above my pay grade. However, have met a few career NCOs, and those that will talk off the record say that, rather than being forced out, some are leaving the service on their own, out of disgust at the social engineering of the Obama administration. Being forced to accept openly gays and women in jobs they were not meant for is too much for some of these older non coms. Heard more than one tale of the awful effect that the women have had on morale, disipline, and combat efficiency. Losing your top leaders wearing stars, plus seeing senior NCOs leaving as well, does not bode well for our national defense obligations.

Ahh...this actually has been going on for a while. BO is creating the military in his image. I have to think that one of his biggest concerns is that he wants to get as many senior officers installed who would not balk at any commands for firing upon American citizens when things in this nation turn south badly. The new officers have probably been very well vetted.

Boxcar

[FantasticDan]

BO is creating the military in his image. I have to think that one of his biggest concerns is that he wants to get as many senior officers installed who would not balk at any commands for firing upon American citizens when things in this nation turn south badly.I'm surprised you of all people are behind on this. Smart patriots know that Obama is currently building an android army who will obey his every America-hating command. Human military officers will be obsolete in the new order.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_57KdecpFQPM/TOFxg7m_tiI/AAAAAAAAACA/2y9SoH0sfV0/s400/obamaRobot%252Bcopy.jpg

[boxcar]

Nice photo of BO. It's the best I've seen him look.

But you know...things may get pretty dicey in this country before all those androids come online. Meanwhile, it's good to have plan B in place for this emergency contingency. ;)

Boxcar

[BlueShoe]

BO is creating the military in his image. I have to think that one of his biggest concerns is that he wants to get as many senior officers installed who would not balk at any commands for firing upon American citizens when things in this nation turn south badly. The new officers have probably been very well vetted.

Boxcar
Perhaps Obama has seen the 1964 motion picture "Seven Days in May" once too many times, thus the purges. :rolleyes: He fears that there may be another General James Mattoon Scott lurking somewhere very close by. :rolleyes: