i was going to say the same thing.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
I dont see how anybody could not want to be infantry in the active duty. the whole point of the military is to support the infantry.
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.fitz8402 wrote:
He was agreeing with me you dunce!
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.
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.
Last edited by stratozyck (2007-06-27 22:13:34)
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.
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 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.
Last edited by fitz8402 (2007-06-28 07:35:55)
Civil rights/equal opportunity? Military service is a privilege, not a right. Same reason why schizophrenics and felons can't get in (or at least for felons it's bloody difficult).
ok, i'm confused as to which cat in a hole in the wall this came out of?GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
I dont see how anybody could not want to be infantry in the active duty. the whole point of the military is to support the infantry.
/derailment
Ok so here's a funny story. I am sitting outside of my freshman English 114 class, and my friend Sam who was recently honorably discharged (so he can pay his way through college - USMC) is sitting next to me. And like a normal freshman without discipline, I failed once again to read Plato's 5 Dialogues, and since Sam is such a nice guy, he let me see his reading notes before the test.
Anyways, so we are sitting outside and the class that's in there already comes out, and I make a joke to Sam, "Man, I would never do push-ups for nobody. Not even if it was some estrogen crazed b!tch who was for some reason my drill sergeant." And then out comes a female officer in the ARMY talking to the class that was inside. She looks right at me and says, "I can make you do push-ups. Infact I can make you do them all day." And right there was when I made up my mind to never put a woman in more power than a man because once women taste the power we sexist males have... they just abuse it. I know if this woman was for some reason a higher ranking than me, she would kick my ass just for shits and giggles.
So being the loud mouth I am, I decided to mouth back and say as she was turning the corner, "Yes Lt. Butch! I'LL DO PUSH-UPS ON YOUR HOT BOD ANYDAY LT. BUTCH!!!" Mind you, I yelled it to make sure she can hear, and I ask Sam if all female officers were hardasses and he just says... allllll of themmmm.
so there you have it, that's my reason of no women in infantry combat, because they are just plain NUTS.
Anyways, so we are sitting outside and the class that's in there already comes out, and I make a joke to Sam, "Man, I would never do push-ups for nobody. Not even if it was some estrogen crazed b!tch who was for some reason my drill sergeant." And then out comes a female officer in the ARMY talking to the class that was inside. She looks right at me and says, "I can make you do push-ups. Infact I can make you do them all day." And right there was when I made up my mind to never put a woman in more power than a man because once women taste the power we sexist males have... they just abuse it. I know if this woman was for some reason a higher ranking than me, she would kick my ass just for shits and giggles.
So being the loud mouth I am, I decided to mouth back and say as she was turning the corner, "Yes Lt. Butch! I'LL DO PUSH-UPS ON YOUR HOT BOD ANYDAY LT. BUTCH!!!" Mind you, I yelled it to make sure she can hear, and I ask Sam if all female officers were hardasses and he just says... allllll of themmmm.
so there you have it, that's my reason of no women in infantry combat, because they are just plain NUTS.
sexist, ignorant and a great way to disrepect our soldiers in uniform during a time of war in front of a large croud. you are no better than those hippies spitting on vietnam veterans.icecreamgod wrote:
Ok so here's a funny story. I am sitting outside of my freshman English 114 class, and my friend Sam who was recently honorably discharged (so he can pay his way through college - USMC) is sitting next to me. And like a normal freshman without discipline, I failed once again to read Plato's 5 Dialogues, and since Sam is such a nice guy, he let me see his reading notes before the test.
Anyways, so we are sitting outside and the class that's in there already comes out, and I make a joke to Sam, "Man, I would never do push-ups for nobody. Not even if it was some estrogen crazed b!tch who was for some reason my drill sergeant." And then out comes a female officer in the ARMY talking to the class that was inside. She looks right at me and says, "I can make you do push-ups. Infact I can make you do them all day." And right there was when I made up my mind to never put a woman in more power than a man because once women taste the power we sexist males have... they just abuse it. I know if this woman was for some reason a higher ranking than me, she would kick my ass just for shits and giggles.
So being the loud mouth I am, I decided to mouth back and say as she was turning the corner, "Yes Lt. Butch! I'LL DO PUSH-UPS ON YOUR HOT BOD ANYDAY LT. BUTCH!!!" Mind you, I yelled it to make sure she can hear, and I ask Sam if all female officers were hardasses and he just says... allllll of themmmm.
so there you have it, that's my reason of no women in infantry combat, because they are just plain NUTS.
and all officers are power freaks, thats why theyre fucking officers.
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2007-06-28 12:45:14)
So are you saying all women are equivalent to felons and people with mental issues? You think that only a certain segment of the population has the right to take up arms in defense of their country?Hurricane wrote:
Civil rights/equal opportunity? Military service is a privilege, not a right. Same reason why schizophrenics and felons can't get in (or at least for felons it's bloody difficult).
I don't follow your logic.
Either that or your just retarded. And I personally lean towards the latter.icecreamgod wrote:
Ok so here's a funny story. I am sitting outside of my freshman English 114 class, and my friend Sam who was recently honorably discharged (so he can pay his way through college - USMC) is sitting next to me. And like a normal freshman without discipline, I failed once again to read Plato's 5 Dialogues, and since Sam is such a nice guy, he let me see his reading notes before the test.
Anyways, so we are sitting outside and the class that's in there already comes out, and I make a joke to Sam, "Man, I would never do push-ups for nobody. Not even if it was some estrogen crazed b!tch who was for some reason my drill sergeant." And then out comes a female officer in the ARMY talking to the class that was inside. She looks right at me and says, "I can make you do push-ups. Infact I can make you do them all day." And right there was when I made up my mind to never put a woman in more power than a man because once women taste the power we sexist males have... they just abuse it. I know if this woman was for some reason a higher ranking than me, she would kick my ass just for shits and giggles.
So being the loud mouth I am, I decided to mouth back and say as she was turning the corner, "Yes Lt. Butch! I'LL DO PUSH-UPS ON YOUR HOT BOD ANYDAY LT. BUTCH!!!" Mind you, I yelled it to make sure she can hear, and I ask Sam if all female officers were hardasses and he just says... allllll of themmmm.
so there you have it, that's my reason of no women in infantry combat, because they are just plain NUTS.
Now go read and get off the internet.
This tactic is not limited to just women. Didn't you see the movie "The Shooter"..lolstratozyck 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.
I think the line was .. "Shoot to wound, wait for their buddys to arrive to help and take out of four".
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Ok, so if a woman can demonstrate her ability to pass whatever the requirements are for a specific MOS, whats the big deal. It seems that the minimum PT standards dont apply to infantry. So at what point do they weed out people for infantry duty. I dont know how they decide so maybe one of the Marines here can enlighten me? Somone here mentioned there is an infantry training command, so are the women weeded out before they get there? Is that were the PT standards are established?
It would be great if someone could layout the progression.
for me it was asvab->boot->subschool->a-school->c-school->fleet.
boot was a joke but they kicked up the PT @ subschool (damned tubby et's) but passing the PRT was a required part of graduation from any given command.
So my question is, when do they kick in the infantry level pt requirements?
It would be great if someone could layout the progression.
for me it was asvab->boot->subschool->a-school->c-school->fleet.
boot was a joke but they kicked up the PT @ subschool (damned tubby et's) but passing the PRT was a required part of graduation from any given command.
So my question is, when do they kick in the infantry level pt requirements?
I would not risk myself to save a female soldier injured any more so than I would a male soldier. we need to get these high school, teenage mentalities out of our heads. if the chick could hang, fuck it, let her serve with the grunts. as long as the standards that are met are kept equal, regardless of body type or whatever. if she could ruck it, fuck it.
But the problem is that most females cant. I would say the vast majority of women that I have seen in service cannot perform their duties as good as male soldiers. there are always exceptions ofcourse and a lot of it has to do with the fact that women arent even given the chance in the first place. but from my experience, females in a unit, especially in a combat zone, have been more of a liability than an asset.
But the problem is that most females cant. I would say the vast majority of women that I have seen in service cannot perform their duties as good as male soldiers. there are always exceptions ofcourse and a lot of it has to do with the fact that women arent even given the chance in the first place. but from my experience, females in a unit, especially in a combat zone, have been more of a liability than an asset.
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2007-06-28 13:04:33)
in the Army, women dont go through any kind of infantry school. barred from combat arms. You cant have any kind of combat occupation if you are female. correction, any ENLISTED combat occupation. they could be apache or kiowa pilots. but you need to have a commission for that.golgoj4 wrote:
Ok, so if a woman can demonstrate her ability to pass whatever the requirements are for a specific MOS, whats the big deal. It seems that the minimum PT standards dont apply to infantry. So at what point do they weed out people for infantry duty. I dont know how they decide so maybe one of the Marines here can enlighten me? Somone here mentioned there is an infantry training command, so are the women weeded out before they get there? Is that were the PT standards are established?
It would be great if someone could layout the progression.
for me it was asvab->boot->subschool->a-school->c-school->fleet.
boot was a joke but they kicked up the PT @ subschool (damned tubby et's) but passing the PRT was a required part of graduation from any given command.
So my question is, when do they kick in the infantry level pt requirements?
In the USMC, just like the Army, females are not allowed to go to SOI(School Of Infantry). Any male is given the opportunity to go through SOI. I think it'll be up to the instructor of the current SOI platoon/company to determine whether a Marine is qualified to be an infantryman. Then I think they branch off to further schooling if they qualified as anything other than 0311. The 03xx field is "Infantry". 0311 being Rifleman, then you have other 03s such as being a Mortarman, which my SDI was.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
in the Army, women dont go through any kind of infantry school. barred from combat arms. You cant have any kind of combat occupation if you are female. correction, any ENLISTED combat occupation. they could be apache or kiowa pilots. but you need to have a commission for that.golgoj4 wrote:
Ok, so if a woman can demonstrate her ability to pass whatever the requirements are for a specific MOS, whats the big deal. It seems that the minimum PT standards dont apply to infantry. So at what point do they weed out people for infantry duty. I dont know how they decide so maybe one of the Marines here can enlighten me? Somone here mentioned there is an infantry training command, so are the women weeded out before they get there? Is that were the PT standards are established?
It would be great if someone could layout the progression.
for me it was asvab->boot->subschool->a-school->c-school->fleet.
boot was a joke but they kicked up the PT @ subschool (damned tubby et's) but passing the PRT was a required part of graduation from any given command.
So my question is, when do they kick in the infantry level pt requirements?
For POG's the screening process goes as follows. Bootcamp -> MCT -> MOS school. If you're not passing all the tests given to you and you're a screw up, they'll try to move you to another much simpler MOS that you can hopefully comprehend.
PT standards are established from before boot camp, starts with the IST... then becomes the PFT midway through boot camp. IST being Initial Strength Test, PFT being Physical Fitness Test. PFT is basically just for your PROs and CONs, it doesn't have anything to do with what MOS you can get. You can be a 3rd class and be in the infantry, but I doubt your fire team or squad will like you very much. We can take this from the movie A Few Good Men, with that private who couldn't keep up on humps.
And as mentioned above, officers can become pilots. But still they cannot be Infantry Platoon Commanders/Leaders.
And one last thing... women always abuse their authority, military or not. And sexual harassment really isn't the best way to respond to a woman being bossy to you, because if she calls you out on sexual harassment... you'll probably be kicked out of your whatever you're doing. ;D
You guys, goldelj4 is from Hollywierd, thats his problem. But yeah, It's MY opinion that women can serve
very well in many different positions
very well in many different positions
I'm not trying to become an officer to be a powerfreak, I'm trying to become an officer because wearing the shinny is sexy! No, seriously, its not about power, its about knowing if you can take the stress and punishment of not only having to take care of and responsibility of the men and women under your command and taking care of them before taking care of yourself.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
and all officers are power freaks, thats why theyre fucking officers.
Also I buck under the leadership of someone that is a complete dunce. Being able to use common sense and apply what has been taught is a much needed skill for those put into a position of authority, something I have noticed has lacked among many. If I have someone that is a good leader, good person, and knows their shit then I will full out support them and do what they say. Now if that leader has no idea and just barks orders (my SOI guide who knows nothing of leadership, but is a PT stud) to hear his own voice, oh you gotta fuckin better believe I'm gonna go crazy.
I did not get promoted to Lcpl out of SOI because I went at it with the guide because he failed to use common sense and proper judgement, and man did that fuck me up. The NCO that saw it ripped me a new one not because I was wrong, but because I took the wrong manner in approaching and correcting the problem. He thought the guide was about as good a leader as a brick wall, but because I fucked it up and did it infront of my squad, I was the one that got fucked up. The moral of the platoon was the lowest out of our company because of our guide, at the MOS split we went from having the best guide, a Marine I would love to see become an officer, to a recon hopeful I hope never gets to see the heavy side of an NCO's rank.
Are they, strictly speaking, Artillery?rdx-fx wrote:
And, finally, Artillery
..and, yep, females in those units too
And what problem is that exactly?Chuck Biscuits wrote:
You guys, goldelj4 is from Hollywierd, thats his problem. But yeah, It's MY opinion that women can serve
very well in many different positions
'tube' arty is what I consider arty to be. I dunno what official classifications have to say on the matter.rdx-fx wrote:
MLRS is an Artillery system in the US Army.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Are they, strictly speaking, Artillery?rdx-fx wrote:
And, finally, Artillery
..and, yep, females in those units too
Other nationalities may classify rocket/missile artillery as separate from 'tube' artillery, I don't know..
('tube' = fires shells through a 'tube', like a M109A6 or howitzer.. rather than missile/artillery)
Thanks to both for answering my question.nonexistentusmc wrote:
In the USMC, just like the Army, females are not allowed to go to SOI(School Of Infantry). Any male is given the opportunity to go through SOI. I think it'll be up to the instructor of the current SOI platoon/company to determine whether a Marine is qualified to be an infantryman. Then I think they branch off to further schooling if they qualified as anything other than 0311. The 03xx field is "Infantry". 0311 being Rifleman, then you have other 03s such as being a Mortarman, which my SDI was.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
in the Army, women dont go through any kind of infantry school. barred from combat arms. You cant have any kind of combat occupation if you are female. correction, any ENLISTED combat occupation. they could be apache or kiowa pilots. but you need to have a commission for that.golgoj4 wrote:
Ok, so if a woman can demonstrate her ability to pass whatever the requirements are for a specific MOS, whats the big deal. It seems that the minimum PT standards dont apply to infantry. So at what point do they weed out people for infantry duty. I dont know how they decide so maybe one of the Marines here can enlighten me? Somone here mentioned there is an infantry training command, so are the women weeded out before they get there? Is that were the PT standards are established?
It would be great if someone could layout the progression.
for me it was asvab->boot->subschool->a-school->c-school->fleet.
boot was a joke but they kicked up the PT @ subschool (damned tubby et's) but passing the PRT was a required part of graduation from any given command.
So my question is, when do they kick in the infantry level pt requirements?
For POG's the screening process goes as follows. Bootcamp -> MCT -> MOS school. If you're not passing all the tests given to you and you're a screw up, they'll try to move you to another much simpler MOS that you can hopefully comprehend.
PT standards are established from before boot camp, starts with the IST... then becomes the PFT midway through boot camp. IST being Initial Strength Test, PFT being Physical Fitness Test. PFT is basically just for your PROs and CONs, it doesn't have anything to do with what MOS you can get. You can be a 3rd class and be in the infantry, but I doubt your fire team or squad will like you very much. We can take this from the movie A Few Good Men, with that private who couldn't keep up on humps.
And as mentioned above, officers can become pilots. But still they cannot be Infantry Platoon Commanders/Leaders.
And one last thing... women always abuse their authority, military or not. And sexual harassment really isn't the best way to respond to a woman being bossy to you, because if she calls you out on sexual harassment... you'll probably be kicked out of your whatever you're doing. ;D
I could care less what grades you've recieved, 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.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.
Does your town still have segregated drinking fountains, by the way?
That chick is weak. You can tell by her punches.
That said, if you can meet the physical requirements, theres nothing wrong with women on the frontlines.
That said, if you can meet the physical requirements, theres nothing wrong with women on the frontlines.