# The end is near........



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

Two females are on-track to graduate this Friday from Army Ranger School.

And, the Navy announced today, that it will now open the ranks of Navy Seals to females able to meet it's requirements. 

But.....neither graduates can be assigned to actual units as of yet.


----------



## miketx60 (Jul 20, 2015)




----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

​


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

This is f--king ridiculous. Women in combat rolls is a recipe for disaster. And in elite fighting forces, such as the Rangers and the Seals, it is worse than a disaster. It's suicide.

There is one exception to women in combat but only one, in my opinion.


----------



## packrat (Jul 30, 2015)

[QUOTE There is one exception to women in combat but only one, in my opinion.[/QUOTE]

The IDF ?


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

SouthernBoy said:


> There is one exception to women in combat but only one, in my opinion.


Which is?


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

packrat said:


> [QUOTE There is one exception to women in combat but only one, in my opinion.


The IDF ?[/QUOTE]



Cait43 said:


> Which is?


This.

If the country was invaded by a foreign power. Think the Soviet Union in 1941 when Nazi Germany invaded that country. In such a case, all bets are off and you throw everything you have at the invader(s).


----------



## CW (Mar 20, 2015)

SouthernBoy said:


> This.....If the country was invaded by a foreign power,....you through everything you have at the invader(s).


Agreed. Such is the state of Israel today [meaning the threat of invasion].


----------



## Goldwing (Nov 5, 2014)

I would not want to be one of the boys who finished behind the "Rangerettes".

GW


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

What if some women are better combat soldiers than the men they are now 'relieving' of support duties?


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

hillman said:


> What if some women are better combat soldiers than the men they are now 'relieving' of support duties?


I don't think you're likely to see much of that. The rigors of boot camp and basic training have been dumbed down to accommodate women. Can you imagine any of them making it through BUDS without a serious amount of handicapping? Also women are not as strong as men so there are a number of assigned tasks, let alone what can happen in an active combat environment, that could hamper their performance. Lastly, there is the male protective instinct which is hardwired into men that could be a hindrance to combat missions.

We can play all the cutesy games we want to satisfy the radical feminists and PC adherents but the fact remains, men and women are different; physically and emotionally. God didn't make any mistakes in this area. The only purpose of the armed forces is to kill people and break things. They are not there for some social engineering experiments, much as some might wish. If I'm going to be sending rounds at an enemy and humping my gear and ordinance in quick case, I want some men around me who can do the same.


----------



## CW (Mar 20, 2015)

Cutting corners will only create failures, and for an elite team that means death.

No doubt there are superior women pilots, sailors and soldiers. There are gifted individuals who may just make the grade due to intelligence or marksmanship. Character is its own test.

But in the search for brute strength and endurance, the sacrifice of battle tested methods simply to accommodate gender destroys the whole purpose of many elite units.

Considering how few men survive BUDS it seems likely the only women who will meet that grade will be men who become women AFTER they serve.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

Well OK chest-beaters, you quite likely know more about it than I do. My observation over time suggests that somewhere around 10% of American women between the ages of 17 and 30 are stronger and hardier both physically and mentally than approximately 40% of American men in that age group. That may have little or no application to the several Special Forces, but not all front-line troops are in that category. What's been shown out there in-country so far?


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

I don't have any issues with females......generally speaking. What the military is doing, is strictly political. It's a move to appease all the PC individuals calling for total equality in the armed forces. 

Introducing females to the special forces is not going to improve the overall function. There is no benefit what-so-ever to be had. At least for the time being, females still cannot be assigned to these units. Who knows, there's still a chance that they never will be, as these programs to integrate females into the units, are still exploratory in nature.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

hillman said:


> Well OK chest-beaters, you quite likely know more about it than I do. My observation over time suggests that somewhere around 10% of American women between the ages of 17 and 30 are stronger and hardier both physically and mentally than approximately 40% of American men in that age group.


One could also make the observation that the vast majority of women are weaker than most men... and that would be true. Think nature with this one. The sexes are different, i.e. not the same. No amount of wishing or hoping or fantasizing is going to change that simple fact. Not to mention the biological differences. And this has absolutely nothing to do with "chest-beaters". It has everything to do with fielding the most effective armed forces a nation can muster. This ain't the movies and G.I. Jane* ain't gonna make it through Seals.

* Shows what the movies know. Seals aren't G.I.'s.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

Just to be clear - I'd much rather the women stayed in support roles, for all the obvious reasons. But, I noticed that neither of you guys answered my question. So I'll repeat it: What's been shown out there in-country so far?


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

hillman said:


> Just to be clear - I'd much rather the women stayed in support roles, for all the obvious reasons. But, I noticed that neither of you guys answered my question. So I'll repeat it: What's been shown out there in-country so far?


Support positions are fine and needed. As for what's going on "out there in-country so far", I haven't a clue. I didn't think that women were actively engaged in combat operations yet. I know the idea has been presented but I'm not sure that it has been implemented yet. Perhaps someone who knows this can chime in and offer an answer.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

paratrooper said:


> If it ain't broke, don't fix it.


But fixing it is what the other side is all about. Remember what a certain individual said...

*"We are just five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America".*

If that wasn't as clear as a bell about what this thing wanted to do, I don't know what was.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

SouthernBoy said:


> This is f--king ridiculous. Women in combat rolls is a recipe for disaster. And in elite fighting forces, such as the Rangers and the Seals, it is worse than a disaster. It's suicide.
> 
> There is one exception to women in combat but only one, in my opinion.


Wait, don't tell me,.............. Hillary??? Yeah, I'd like to see her defend her country instead of undermining it.


----------



## Goldwing (Nov 5, 2014)

If there is any justice in this world, Hillary will serve....................... a term behind bars. Others are already there for doing a lot less wrong than she did with classified information.

GW


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

RK3369 said:


> Wait, don't tell me,.............. Hillary??? Yeah, I'd like to see her defend her country instead of undermining it.


Now that would be novel.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

goldwing said:


> If there is any justice in this world, Hillary will serve....................... a term behind bars. Others are already there for doing a lot less wrong than she did with classified information.
> 
> GW


Of course we both know that just ain't gonna happen.


----------



## Goldwing (Nov 5, 2014)

SouthernBoy said:


> Of course we both know that just ain't gonna happen.


With our DOJ that hag will probably be nominated for the Nobel Prize.

GW


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

For all of you that have served, you know as well as I do, how well the military goes about fixing things. Our military can over-think of box of river rock. 

The last time I checked (mid 1970's) the Rangers were doing just fine w/o females in their ranks. Swelling the ranks with females will do nothing to add to the overall function or success of said units. It will only detract from them.


----------



## bluedog46 (Jan 29, 2015)

My thing is they going to be held to the same standards? You dont get tested on less pull ups or push ups in combat. I need to read up on it more. Seems the way things have been done have worked so far.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

bluedog46 said:


> My thing is they going to be held to the same standards? You dont get tested on less pull ups or push ups in combat. I need to read up on it more. Seems the way things have been done have worked so far.


My point was and still is, all of this is just PC crapola. It has nothing to do with improving existing conditions or performance. It's all about some dead heads in office wanting to see 100% total equality in the armed forces.

The armed forces has never been about total equality. The day it does become such, is the day we will lose as a great nation.


----------

