That was probably one of the best videos I have ever seen posted on this site. Who cares if the other team blew, that kicked ass. +1
Search
Search results: 92 found, showing up to 50
Sweet video man +1
Awesome Video, Awesome Music, +1!
I play it almost daily
WTF was that crap fest. What are a couple clips from B movies supposed to prove. The US is still around, the USSR isnt. Sounds like 1-0 USA to me.
There was one a couple of weeks ago about a former marine in Georgia that killed a 300lb bear by throwing a log at it. I will try and find the article and post it. Even better than that there was one last year in Atlanta about a former marine that was attacked by 4 people and two of them had guns. The marine used his pocket knife to kill two of them before the other two ran for it.
I could just be talking out of my ass here but I believe that the chipset on the motherboard determines what gpu's it supports. I cant see how you could have one that supported both formats because they are manufactured by rival companies. I honestly dont know for sure though. Just my 2 cents
It is for the crash fire rescue team. They have to know how to get the pilot out if he cant do it himself.david363 wrote:
who knows but im wondering why it says "RESCUE" down the side of the jet...
Actually it is the proper version. The carrier in the game is a helicopter carrier.pyscofrawg wrote:
And another thing that has caught my attention as being odd. The F35B is not the carrier variant of the jet. The carrier based variant would be the F35C.
As cool as it was its not even close to possible. Sorry to bust your bubble. To take it a step farther I will really play reality police. The STOVL F-35 does not even have an internal gun. If the mission requires one a pod can be mounted under the wing but would never be fired while in a hover. In the movie it shows the muzzle flash coming from somewhere in the bottom of the engine inlet. An aircraft designer would never even consider doing this because of the corrosive gasses that would be pulled through the engine. Not to mention the risk of debris destroying the engine. Just one more example of the game developers and hollywierd not doing there homework.genius_man16 wrote:
i think it's possible...wah1188 wrote:
Haha watched it today thats possible in real life right? I was gutted it died by a little piece of poo poo falling into its hole though .genius_man16 wrote:
slightly off topic but...anyone else think the F-35 in Live Free or Die Hard was pretty fucking cool?
i wish you could do that maneuvering in BF2...
but then again, it's a movie and mostly computer generated, so who knows?
and i feel your pain, it's lame how it died b/c that box thing fell into it's.... man, i don't want to call it a hole, lol
It does 2 things. 1.) It keeps the nose strut from "shimmying" during takeoff, taxi and landing. 2.) Once the nose strut leaves the ground it positions the nose wheel so it is parallel with the center-line of the aircraft so it does not prevent the nose wheel from being retracted.taffy1979 wrote:
WTF is a shimmy dampener, i ask cos i am an aircraft technician.Nappy wrote:
does this plane have a shimmy damper? it doesn't look like it, but its bolted down.
god i love that word
You are not BSing about that original price but it is actually much lower now. We now have the cost down to just slightly over what a new f-15 costs. The f-35 is nowhere near as versatile as the f-22. Feel free to look it up.mafropetee wrote:
navy. sorreh.fitz8402 wrote:
Upon reading you entire post I noticed other problems. 1.) The army doesn't fly fighters thus it will not be receiving a single f-35. 2.) It has nowhere near the capabilities of the f-22.fitz8402 wrote:
It is flight test equipment. No doubt about it. Take a look a the pick in my previous post
quite true about the F-22, but the F-22 is hella expensive. one F-22 costs about $187.3 mil. one F-35, on the other hand, costs roughly $100 mil. dont say im bsing cuz i pulled this right off of the governement's own website. also, the F-35 is a lot more versatile than the F-22, making it suitable for more combat situations. heres what i think they will do: use the F-35 as our main aircraft for most of our airborn fighters, and keep the F-22's stowed away in case situations call for its superiority.
Yes I am serious Thank you +1mafropetee wrote:
are you serious?fitz8402 wrote:
I tried to post a pic but dont know how. I am a forum noob. Good job man
use these simple tags: (place url of picture here)
I tried to post a pic but dont know how. I am a forum noob. Good job man
Upon reading you entire post I noticed other problems. 1.) The army doesn't fly fighters thus it will not be receiving a single f-35. 2.) It has nowhere near the capabilities of the f-22.fitz8402 wrote:
It is flight test equipment. No doubt about it. Take a look a the pick in my previous postmafropetee wrote:
actually, its a new takeoff system that they developed for the F-35 jets (i like to call them by their other name, JSF, or Joint Strike Fighter). it allows the plane to either take off in a normal way, like from a runway or off of a carrier, or in a vertical manner, more like a helicopter. that feature is only in the marines variant of the JSF, which is, of course, the variant used in the game. there is a way to take off vertically in the game, but i forgot how. i think you double tap the S key. you can even see the engine bend down in the game if someone is doing a vertical takeoff.san4 wrote:
I found a few photos showing it in real life F-35B's. I don't know if that means it's part of the production model or not (the lower photo definitely looks like some kind of test arrangement), but it is definitely funky looking.
http://img40.picoodle.com/img/img40/8/7 … 6807ff.jpg
http://img28.picoodle.com/img/img28/8/7 … 70dccb.jpg
Kinda makes you want to hand it a tissue, doesn't it?
as for the protrusion in the front which this thread is originally about, like i said before. most likely a sensor array. i dont think its a form of testing equipment like whoever said that said. because im pretty sure ive seen it on final versions of the JSF. i DO know that it has a really advanced radar system. actually, it has a pretty advanced everything. they made this jet as a cheaper, more efficient, yet technolgically advanced way to supply our armed forces with aircraft. theres also army and air force variants. they were supposed to replace pretty much every other fighter, especially the F-22 Raptor, because of how versatile they are. but i havent been keeping up with this stuff for a while, so im not sure if they ever really put it into decent action. but i knew about it a long time ago when it was still in development and barely anyone knew about it. and i loved everything about it
It is flight test equipment. No doubt about it. Take a look a the pick in my previous postmafropetee wrote:
actually, its a new takeoff system that they developed for the F-35 jets (i like to call them by their other name, JSF, or Joint Strike Fighter). it allows the plane to either take off in a nomral way, like from a runway or off of a carrier, or in a vertical manner, more like a helicopter. that feature is only in the marines variant of the JSF, which is, of course, the variant used in the game. there is a way to take off vertically in the game, but i forgot how. i think you double tap the S key. you can even see the engine bend down in the game if someone is doing a vertical takeoff.san4 wrote:
I found a few photos showing it in real life F-35B's. I don't know if that means it's part of the production model or not (the lower photo definitely looks like some kind of test arrangement), but it is definitely funky looking.fitz8402 wrote:
Actually it is a piece of flight test equipment. If the designers of the game would have done their homework they would have known it would not be on the production model.
http://img40.picoodle.com/img/img40/8/7 … 6807ff.jpg
http://img28.picoodle.com/img/img28/8/7 … 70dccb.jpg
Kinda makes you want to hand it a tissue, doesn't it?
as for the protrusion in the front which this thread is originally about, like i said before. most likely a sensor array. i dont think its a form of testing equipment like whoever said that said. because im pretty sure ive seen it on final versions of the JSF. i DO know that it has a really advanced radar system. actually, it has a pretty advanced everything. they made this jet as a cheaper, more efficient, yet technolgically advanced way to supply our armed forces with aircraft. theres also army and air force variants. they were supposed to replace pretty much every other fighter, especially the F-22 Raptor, because of how versatile they are. but i havent been keeping up with this stuff for a while, so im not sure if they ever really put it into decent action. but i knew about it a long time ago when it was still in development and barely anyone knew about it. and i loved everything about it
This article has a picture of the first production model. I hope this link workssan4 wrote:
I found a few photos showing it in real life F-35B's. I don't know if that means it's part of the production model or not (the lower photo definitely looks like some kind of test arrangement), but it is definitely funky looking.fitz8402 wrote:
Actually it is a piece of flight test equipment. If the designers of the game would have done their homework they would have known it would not be on the production model.
http://img40.picoodle.com/img/img40/8/7 … 6807ff.jpg
http://img28.picoodle.com/img/img28/8/7 … 70dccb.jpg
Kinda makes you want to hand it a tissue, doesn't it?
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl= … x%26sa%3DN
Actually it is a piece of flight test equipment. If the designers of the game would have done their homework they would have known it would not be on the production model.
I bought both and really enjoy AF. I would recommend it to anybody. You can really rack up the engineer points if you are into that sort of thing. I myself got it for all the tankbusting you can do in the helo's.
The bill of rights has not changed. It is just the first 10 amendments of the constitution. It will never change. You really need to think before you speak my friend. I wont even dignify your segregation comment with a response.DeadboyUSMC wrote:
I could care less what grades you've received, what's evident is that no learning has occurred. If the Bill of Rights wasn't meant to be adaptive, then why the hell does it have ANY amendments?fitz8402 wrote:
You are correct sir! There is no quote thus proving you were talking out your ass when you said the documents were created to be adaptive. It sounds like you need a little schooling my friend. As for me needing an Admin of Justice class I would be more than happy to compare college transcripts with you. I guarantee you that after we were done you would realize that when I speak of government and law I am speaking from a position based in fact and not opinion.DeadboyUSMC wrote:
There is no direct quote. Take an Administration of Justice class, then you might learn a thing or two about civil rights/ equal opportunity.
Does your town still have segregated drinking fountains, by the way?
I dont have a problem with changes being made to the constitution. This country would be ass backwards if we didn't. I just have a problem when people quote it without knowing what they are talking about. The reality of the situation is that while there are provisions for change in our constitution they are very difficult to achieve and they are that way for a reason. Dont say the constitution says this or that without being able to back it up. As for my stance on why certain PEOPLE (people who can't hack it) shouldnt be allowed read the rest of the thread.golgoj4 wrote:
Note. I've never served in an infantry unit. I've only known a ranger and a para trooper. I say that to say that I can really speak to the dynamics of infantry. I was a squid Turning wrenches on nukes at the bottom of the ocean. Cue jokes.fitz8402 wrote:
You are correct sir! There is no quote thus proving you were talking out your ass when you said the documents were created to be adaptive. It sounds like you need a little schooling my friend. As for me needing an Admin of Justice class I would be more than happy to compare college transcripts with you. I guarantee you that after we were done you would realize that when I speak of government and law I am speaking from a position based in fact and not opinion.DeadboyUSMC wrote:
There is no direct quote. Take an Administration of Justice class, then you might learn a thing or two about civil rights/ equal opportunity.
So now that thats outta the way I just wanted to ask Fitz: If the Constitution and the bill of rights are not meant to be adaptive, do you not support any of the civil rights movement of the past 60 years? It just seems if your that strict in your reading of the constitution then things like civil rights, among other things were never meant to exist. And if not, how can you be selective in who does and doesn't have rights. 50 years ago the NAVY would have laughed if I wanted to be a missile tech (obviously there were no ssbn's then). I woulda been a fracking cook because the line was 'cant see well at night' or some crap. So I guess the crux of my question is, who decides who gets to serve and in what capacity? If one meets the requirements, why do we have to discriminate against them based upon other dubious factors.
That totally kicks ass! I actually read it earlier but +1 anyway for sharing.
Yet another person backing up my point that having women in combat creates unique problems that far outweigh having another trigger puller. There is no shortage of able bodied males so why make things harder than they already are.stratozyck wrote:
Guys, guys.... its been done before.
The Israeli Army tried women on the frontlines.
Women are capable. The problem is, when a woman gets injured, the men tend to all help her out. This makes an easy opportunity for the enemy; shoot the women first and the men will all go to help her, then shoot them.
The issue isn't whether some women are capable. The issue is whether having a woman fighting side by side with a man won't cause other disruptions to the unit cohesion. How many men have fought over women in the past? I could definitely see how a love triangle could jeapordize the safety of the entire unit.
Maybe seperate units with all women might solve this. I don't know, all I know is that the Israelis tried it briefly and don't do it anymore.
I have been very consistent from the beginning. When I called a dunce I was not being mean spirited. I was just pointing out the fact that you totally misread the post. If I was looking to insult you I would have come up with something a little worse than that. I am not on this forum to get angry and argue. I am here to observe and enlighten. If I knew nothing about this subject I wouldn't have said a word.Ender2309 wrote:
yes. have you? you were debating very well from the start, but slipped off your position towards the end and just started blurting. and since when is calling somebody a dunce good natured debate?fitz8402 wrote:
Have you read all of the posts??? I have been defending my position from the beginning. Nothing but good natured debate!Ender2309 wrote:
yes i quite realize that. my point was that instead of explaining it you're pissed and throwing things left and right. you're arguing like a twelve year old instead of debating like a grown man. consider that.
Enjoyed the rant! +1 I agree with everything you said. Unfortunatley we both know men and women will never be held to the same standard in the Marine Corps. I also whole heartedly agree that men that cant hack it should not be there either.Ridir wrote:
Ok, so we have a couple of people that want women in front line units and a couple of people who don't, mainly fitz arguing it though.
School of Infantry for me was a cake walk but also a bitch and a half. I was a squad leader so during any field work I got to carry the PRC-119, and no, not a nice new one but an older, bitch of one. Try being tatical with a dayback, NVG's, the PRC-119, 11 Marines and an NCO who is trying to best his buddy who we are to ambush or be ambushed by, or if lucky sneak by and attack the objective. Oh by the way this is at 0300 after getting 1 hour of sporatic sleep since 2200 due to two assaults, checking on my squad in their fighting positions during every 45-60 minutes, making sure one of them is asleep. I have Marines stumbling around, kicking stuff by accident, thankfully not bitching or moaning or I'd get ripped a new one after it was all done. So after a 30 minute movement I set up a defensive position and the NCO takes me off to survey the "enemy" position, thats a bitch because he gets lost and we take a long way around. End up getting a half decent look, come back get the Marines, have to wake a son of a bitch up, (get my ass chewed for it later) and start moving again get the Marines to through the assualt and back, move back, launch an ambush on the firebreak, move back to the defensive position in time to fill'em in and start moving out back down the hill to the barracks.
Ok, that was an easy TRAINING exercise. Now I know a few females that can do that fine, and I would have no problem with them in combat, its the others like the Marine who fell asleep and fell behind on the run and I had to wait for his slow, fat ass to catch up that would piss me off. It's not the ones that could do it that are the reason I say no. It's the ones that can't but want to do it because they are told they can't and risk the lives of everyone in the area because of it. Right now I haven't been deployed overseas, in fact I'm going to Juniors PLC in a little over a week, but my unit has some very capable Marines, including NCOs and senior Lcpl.'s with experience "in country." On the other hand we have a guy who is at 35% body fat and can't do shit to save his own neck.
Ok, I know this has turned into a rant but what I am saying is that no matter which sex you are talking about there are going to be those that can cut it and those that cannot cut it. With men, the "success rate" is much more likely to be higher then with females. If the military made infantry standards, say a 1st Class PFT with a minimum in each of the catagories that is the same for both sexes and stipulations for both then only the peope cut out for infantry would make it into the infantry. But then again how many people are there crazy enough to volunteer to go grunt?
Oh, wtf, its not like I can sway any minds with a logical argument so I'm not even go to edit my rants.
Good luck at OCS man.
Have you read all of the posts??? I have been defending my position from the beginning. Nothing but good natured debate!Ender2309 wrote:
yes i quite realize that. my point was that instead of explaining it you're pissed and throwing things left and right. you're arguing like a twelve year old instead of debating like a grown man. consider that.fitz8402 wrote:
He was agreeing with me you dunce!Ender2309 wrote:
now if only we could get fitz to be this coherent...
He was agreeing with me you dunce!Ender2309 wrote:
now if only we could get fitz to be this coherent...nonexistentusmc wrote:
Well, that's the minimum reqs for a PFT. Combat Obstacle Courses are not run in PT gear. So, he's just talking about a regular Physical Fitness Test, which has little to do with humping out on 80-100+ lbs of gear for an undetermined distance, well until you reach your destination. Like you said, anyone can pass the test, but can they hump out and not fall out. Falling out during a hump is a HUGE problem, not only does it take away 1 Marine/soldier, but now the corpsman/medic has to attend to him/her, and now we might have to call for medevac depending on how serious the reason is as to why he/she fell out(dehydration/fatigue/etc). There's a lot of factors involving being in the infantry. I know MCT isn't SOI but in MCT(Marine Combat Training) we had to climb wooden walls with our flak jacket(no plates) with our weapon and deuce gear, all the while being "tactical". Shit, I know that was a little challenging for me. I passed the PFT but I couldn't hack the freakin wall! OMFG! See where I'm getting at? Now add to the fact that bullets will now be flying by towards you. Better drop the pack and get over the wall quickyrickytick!Ender2309 wrote:
wow. anybody that can't complete that is a fucking pussy. hell, i had my third day of cross country practice today and i did more than that.
a woman in a construction job could easily pull that off. so could most athletes.
stop being an ignorant backwatery hick.
That may be true in your little cartoon mind but when lives are on the line the minimum standard does not cut it.Ender2309 wrote:
uh...no, thats definitely what minimum standards are there for. they show that you can do at least what you need to.fitz8402 wrote:
You just made my point my freind! Just because a person can comply with the minimum standard it does not mean they have a prayer of performing at the level that will be expected of them in the infantry.Ender2309 wrote:
wow. anybody that can't complete that is a fucking pussy. hell, i had my third day of cross country practice today and i did more than that.
a woman in a construction job could easily pull that off. so could most athletes.
stop being an ignorant backwatery hick.
You just made my point my freind! Just because a person can comply with the minimum standard it does not mean they have a prayer of performing at the level that will be expected of them in the infantry.Ender2309 wrote:
wow. anybody that can't complete that is a fucking pussy. hell, i had my third day of cross country practice today and i did more than that.fitz8402 wrote:
Grunts have to pass the same pft as admin. 3 pullups, 60 crunches and a 28 min run. Just because you are capable of minimun standards it doesnt mean you can cut the mustard. If you are or were in I am sure you can think of several examples both male and female that didnt cut it.DeadboyUSMC wrote:
I'd have to think that if they were able to choose 0311 as their MOS, and have made it to the battlefield, then they have finished all of the training they need, and will not be a burden to the unit in the least. Male or female, if you're a grunt (and not a dumbass, hopefully), you're there because you're willing and able.
a woman in a construction job could easily pull that off. so could most athletes.
stop being an ignorant backwatery hick.
You are correct sir! There is no quote thus proving you were talking out your ass when you said the documents were created to be adaptive. It sounds like you need a little schooling my friend. As for me needing an Admin of Justice class I would be more than happy to compare college transcripts with you. I guarantee you that after we were done you would realize that when I speak of government and law I am speaking from a position based in fact and not opinion.DeadboyUSMC wrote:
There is no direct quote. Take an Administration of Justice class, then you might learn a thing or two about civil rights/ equal opportunity.fitz8402 wrote:
Please quote to me the part of the constitution or the bill of rights that says they were created in order to be "adaptive". As for female cops I think that there are many of them who have no business being cops. But to be fair when I see a 300 pound male cop who could not run 100 yards to save his life I would say he is unfit for duty as well. The big difference between cops and grunts is a cop will never be asked to throw 70 - 120 pounds on their backs and hump it 30 miles and then be expected to engage the enemy in combat.DeadboyUSMC wrote:
Not in the actual MOS, but my unit switched over to foot/ HMMWV patrols once we got into Baghdad. I'm not talking out of my ass here.
If you truly had no problem with women fitz, then you wouldn't have a "problem" with them serving in a combat unit. See the irony?
The men who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights made it to be adaptive. I suggest looking through the Amendments.
What's your stance on female police officers? In a sense, a patrol officer is on a "frontline." I'm sure you could worm your way out of a ticket by telling a female police officer that you don't a "problem" with her being a cop, just as long as she sits behind a desk. See what happens.
26,008 here. I guess I better grab an assload of snickers bars if I plan on waiting.
Ok, I can admit when I am wrong. That is one sexy bitch and it would be a crime to keep him out of the pool.Kmarion wrote:
Of course they do. http://i14.tinypic.com/67dlehc.giffitz8402 wrote:
I also happen to believe men have no place in synchronized swimming. Does that mean I hate all men? Just a little food for thought.
Please quote to me the part of the constitution or the bill of rights that says they were created in order to be "adaptive". As for female cops I think that there are many of them who have no business being cops. But to be fair when I see a 300 pound male cop who could not run 100 yards to save his life I would say he is unfit for duty as well. The big difference between cops and grunts is a cop will never be asked to throw 70 - 120 pounds on their backs and hump it 30 miles and then be expected to engage the enemy in combat.DeadboyUSMC wrote:
Not in the actual MOS, but my unit switched over to foot/ HMMWV patrols once we got into Baghdad. I'm not talking out of my ass here.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
how many of you have actually served in an infantry unit as an infantryman?
If you truly had no problem with women fitz, then you wouldn't have a "problem" with them serving in a combat unit. See the irony?
The men who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights made it to be adaptive. I suggest looking through the Amendments.
What's your stance on female police officers? In a sense, a patrol officer is on a "frontline." I'm sure you could worm your way out of a ticket by telling a female police officer that you don't a "problem" with her being a cop, just as long as she sits behind a desk. See what happens.
The MEN that wrote the constitution could never have imagined the metamorphosis our government has undergone.DeadboyUSMC wrote:
I'm sure the Constitution was written by a bunch of candy asses.fitz8402 wrote:
Unfortunately this country is run by a bunch of PC candyasses that the military is forced to answer to. Otherwise it wouldn't be a bad idea. BTW, I have no problem with women at all. I just dint think they belong in combat.
I also happen to believe men have no place in synchronized swimming. Does that mean I hate all men? Just a little food for thought.
So if you don't have an issue with women, why can't they be allowed to shoot a bad guy as much as you can? That statement is just a bit contradictory...
I have said nothing that even comes close to being contradictory. I have been quite consistent. I dint have a problem with women. I simply have a problem with forcing the military to accept women in the infantry. If they want to shoot "badguys" let them get a job a fire control officer on a destroyer or something.
I dont know where you get your information but the U.S. never plundered mexico's resourses. The reality of the situation is that mexico has huge oil reserves but they are controlled by the largely socialist govt and thus have not been developed to their full potential. As far as the U.S "taking their land" that is pretty much a crock. If the U.S. is guilty of taking anybody's land it is the land that belonged to the Native Americans. Just because the mexican govt had a handfull of outposts that they used to claim indian territory doesnt mean that they are entitled to it. Any reform in mexico is going to have to come from within. The leftist leaders of that country will never let it happen though.Shopvac wrote:
Hey Harmor, would you mind providing a citation/reference for those stats?
Bubbalo is right. Although Mexico has been reluctant to make any meaningful reforms on its own, Colonial Europe and the United States haven't done anything to help them out either. After Mexican Independence, American firms pillaged the mineral resources of Mexico. Imagine what other resources Mexico would have access to if the United States had not taken the land from California to Mexico, and as far North as Colorado!
If the United State is serious about immigration we as a nation will pressure our companies who do business there to pay a fair wage, and to not take advantage of any and all loopholes. When residents of Latin America are given a good reason to stay home . . . they probably will.
Unfortunately this country is run by a bunch of pc candyasses that the military is forced to answer to. Otherwise it wouldn't be a bad idea. BTW, I have no problem with women at all. I just dont think they belong in combat.DeadboyUSMC wrote:
She's probably saying "Get back!", or something along those lines. That's what I had to say when I went through the course. Basically, you get sprayed so you know what it feels like, and overcome the pain and still be able to kick ass. Oh, and it was pepper spray.haffeysucks wrote:
What is she saying the whole time, and what did they spray in her eyes?
I think it's time you wrote a letter to your command illustrating your dislike of female marines/ soldiers/ airmen/ sailors/ women in general fitz, show them the initiative you've demonstrated here on the outside world too! Hmm, promotion, or EO nightmare??
I also happen to believe men have no place in synchronized swimming. Does that mean I hate all men? Just a little food for thought.
This is exactly what I was talking about. They cant do it and others are forced to pick up the slack. I have experienced this same scenario more times than I care to say. This had nothing to do with physical strength either. It is simply another case of female issues.nonexistentusmc wrote:
Infantry is definitely not for everyone... even I will admit I am not cut out for 03, so I became a POG. I'm pretty sure there's a go-around when it comes to the monthly issue for females... but as mentioned above, the overall physical capability of a female is most likely less than a males. I guess emotional issues can be a big problem as well? And yes, females will become more exposed to combat as their availability in the field increases. We have a Motor-T driver in our unit who is a female and unfortunately, she wasn't feeling "too well" to drive. She got her ass chewed out, but she got out of what she was supposed to do. Not very good when it comes to the other Marines involved, especially the junior devils, bad example!
You cant argue with that! I dont know why so many people believe that Islam is a religon of peace. Open up a history book. It never has been and never will be. +1Kmarion wrote:
Interpretation is everything.
“Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those who say this are witless. Islam says: 'Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter their armies.'”
The Ayatollah Khomeini
WOW FINALLY SOMEBODY WHO CAN UNDERSTAND SIMPLE REASON. +1motherdear wrote:
i'm with fitz, i really don't think that it's worth the time, effort and money trying to educate a female soldier. okay maybe they can get around their period and serve as a proper soldier should, but the chances of having a succesfull female soldiers is much lower than of a male since he got 40% more muscle in his upperbody and 30% ind his lower body
http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/89/1/81
first of all girls got to catch up to this disadvantage and then their fellow soldiers have properly already gotten 20/30% more muscle than the awerage man, if not more. simply men can get more muscle than women so it makes no sense employing women who can't compete with a man if he did the same amount of training. it just cost to much money and it puts a stress on the womens fellow Boot camp grunts, because she will most likely have to getting her shit together when all the other lads already is far ahead of her. of course there can be exceptions but they are so rare that they are not worth looking for since you can get 10 men of the same build or higher than the woman at the same cost in recruitment and training.
In a nutshell the invesment would not yeild a significant enough return.Kmarion wrote:
I see. You don't doubt they exist, you just think that those are who capable shouldn't be given the opportunity.fitz8402 wrote:
Look up the word ignorance you will be enlightened. And I wasnt saying that there were exceptions to my previous statements I was saying that not all females eek by on the miniimun standard. Saying that is justifaction for allowing them to serve in the infantry is quite the stretch.Kmarion wrote:
You do realize this is the point I was making. Are you now in a position of ignorance also?fitz8402 wrote:
Obviously you have absolutely 0 comprehension of what exactly an infantryman has to be capable of. That being said their is really no point discussing this with somebody who is speaking from a position of ignorance.
Havent tried it but if this is true it is good info.
Look up the word ignorance you will be enlightened. And I wasnt saying that there were exceptions to my previous statements I was saying that not all females eek by on the miniimun standard. Saying that is justifaction for allowing them to serve in the infantry is quite the stretch.Kmarion wrote:
fitz8402 wrote:
Obviously you have absolutely 0 comprehension of what exactly an infantryman has to be capable of. That being said their is really no point discussing this with somebody who is speaking from a position of ignorance.You do realize this is the point I was making. Are you now in a position of ignorance also?fitz8402 wrote:
I dont deny that there are exceptions. I have never seen one though.
Rip Off
My problem isnt only with femaile marines and its not with all female marines. I have no use for the males who cant hack it either. I dont deny that there are exceptions I have never seen one though. What I said was a generalization.DeadboyUSMC wrote:
So all female Marines only meet the minimum? I'm sure there's a few with perfect 300's, more than a few Rifle Expert awards, and have actually been in combat. I think it's sad you believe that women couldn't cut it on the battlefield. I'm with a Seabee Reserve unit nowadays, and the CO is a former Marine. She's seen as much shit as I have and don't feel she's inferior in any way.
Whatever killer, believe what you want, obviously objectivity isn't a big thing for some.
Grunts have to pass the same pft as admin. 3 pullups, 60 crunches and a 28 min run. Just because you are capable of minimun standards it doesnt mean you can cut the mustard. If you are or were in I am sure you can think of several examples both male and female that didnt cut it.DeadboyUSMC wrote:
I'd have to think that if they were able to choose 0311 as their MOS, and have made it to the battlefield, then they have finished all of the training they need, and will not be a burden to the unit in the least. Male or female, if you're a grunt (and not a dumbass, hopefully), you're there because you're willing and able.fitz8402 wrote:
I am not worried about them getting dirty or dying. I just think it sucks that others will have to pick up their slack and may be injured or killed because of it.DeadboyUSMC wrote:
Meh, let them fight. The human race has endured for several million years, I'm sure Sally could go on a field op or two, get a bit dirty and live.