Chicks in combat? What's next?

I can put this all to rest: a Democratic libtard from NY has just stated that gyno-Americans cannot wield an "assault weapon" like the male species and should therefore not be allowed to use them in combat zones.

So, there's no further point in debate . . . since we all know that libiots are omniscient.

Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat, but shouldn’t use assault weapons | Video | TheBlaze.com

Dem Rep: Women should serve in combat, but shouldn’t use assault weapons

Jan. 25, 2013 10:24am Meredith Jessup
On the very same day that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta lifted the ban on women serving in active combat zones, a Democratic congresswoman from New York argued that assault weapons are actually difficult for women to handle and should therefore be banned.
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy — a strong proponent for women serving in military combat roles — appeared on CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight Thursday to make the case for Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s assault weapons ban. To that end, McCarthy argued that women should use traditional rifles rather than assault rifles because the former would would be “easier for a woman” to use.
WATCH (via WFB):

PIERS MORGAN: I have an interview coming up with two young women who wrote a piece in which they said they wanted the rights of the AR-15 weapon at home because they feared they would be attacked and they wanted a gun that would guarantee they would murder or would kill their attacker. How do you respond to that particular argument, which is they believe under their second amendment right they should be allowed an AR-15?​

CAROLYN MCCARTHY: I will tell you, if you talk to professionals, hunters and certainly sportsmen, they’ll tell you that’s not the gun to use. A rifle is more accurate. It’s certainly easier for a woman to be able to do that.​

If this were actually true, McCarthy would seem to be admitting that there are limitations on what women can do in a combat position and perhaps the Defense Department’s ban should stand. More than likely, though, is that McCarthy is using gender-based arguments to try and bolster her stance against assault rifles. In other words, it’s…

​

See video of the full segment after the jump.​

​

 

If combat is conducted as if it were murder...then I'd say that the soldier/unit is probably improperly trained, illdisciplined, doing it wrong, and at greater risk of becoming a psychological casualty than if he/she were conducting themselves on the battlefield as a disciplined combatant adhering to the ROE. Yes, soldiers of necessity will kill and injure their opponent, even by as much cunning, guile and subterfuge that they can contrive that is ethically permitted, but unsanctioned killing may work against successful mission accomplishment.

Humans killing other humans is not a natural instinct and there are many societal sanctions against it. Strange as it may seem...men's capacity for killing other men is not all that naturally high, hence the intensive training and socialisation they get as soldiers to diminish their inhibitions against killing. Murderers make for poor soldiers, and it would be foolish to enlist recruits on the basis of their capacity to murder; but human beings (male and female) can be trained to be more effective at their trade of disciplined, sanctioned killing when the occasion requires it. Men and women both are capable of killing in a disciplined fashion without utterly discarding their humanity, compassion, and sense of justice in the process: The survival of humanity depends upon it.

 

Just out of curiosity are their any male Marines you can "kick the ever loving piss out of"? and if there are, do they deserve to serve in combat or is just the woman that you can kick the piss out of that can't serve in combat? Also for the sake of argument, are there any male Marines that can kick the piss out of you? and if there are, does that mean you should not be able to serve in combat?

I am just trying to follow your logic, because if you follow it through, we end up with one combat capable Maine in the entire corps, and that is the one that can kick the piss out of everyone else. Now it even gets more complicated if that marine can kick the piss out of everyone in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard. Now we are down to one combat capable member of the Armed Forces of the United States. Even worse, what if that "one guy" that can kick the pis out of everyone else is in the Navy, or God forbid the Coast Guard, that would leave no combat capable Marines. Maybe the "Kick the piss out of" test is not such a good test after all.

Now while you are trying to figure that one out, how about we remember that not all combat assignments are in infantry, and there just may be some combat roles that a well trained, highly motivated woman can not only serve in, but excel in, without the need to pass the "can Pyrrhus kick the piss out of me" test.

Also just for the sake of argument, if the training and qualification standards were the same for men and women, would you still have a problem with women in combat?

 

But then, you have no real idea what you are talking about. Books aren't life.

 

First, yes, there are some male Marines I can kick the ever loving piss out of. But not all of them. I can however kick the ever loving piss out of every female Marine with whom I have ever worked. All of them.

Let us assume for a moment that the minimum standard for being eligible for a combat MOS is that a person be able to physically best a 40-year-old, broken down has been. Sound like too high a standard? If not, consider that I have never, not once, worked with or met a female Marine who could meet that standard. And if you can't meet that standard, you are dead walking. Maybe you like the thought of a bunch of slaughtered women; I don't.

You don't try to follow logic. You are derisive, arrogant, and ignorant. The "kick the piss out of" test is rather fantastic as far as setting a minimum standard, but you missed that concept.

I don't have to sit around trying to figure out your arguments. See my earlier comments regarding your arrogance.

I don't do "for the sake of argument" when somebody hypothesizes an impossibility. If the training and qualification standards were the same for men and women, the argument would be moot, because none of the women would pass.

 

You want to give them numbtumgs? them web woubn't umberstamb amytang!

 

Spice is good, nicht wahr?

 

Your adhominem brush off doesn't refute the substance of post #146. I'd have been a poor instructor if I had trained male and female officer candidates merely as killing machines. I trained them in infantry minor tactics to be thinking officers capable of leading an infantry rifle platoon in the field, regardless of their ultimate corps allocation. Most women would not have wanted a posting to infantry...some very few would have been capable of a posting to commandos. If they pass the various medical and physical fitness and induction suitability tests to the same standard as the men...then in my book, they have earned the billet until such times as they do not meet those requirements: in the same way that males also lose their green berets when they no longer meet the standard required of them as commandos.

 

It's not an ad hominem attack to point out that all your experience is theoretical.

Maybe I'm wrong. You've killed? What did it feel like to you?

 

No...I have not killed...., but not having killed does not diminish the weight of the argument, else the argument would be confined only to those who have killed...having killed, does not of itself mean that the arguments that one makes are reasoned or inherently valid.

Even had I have scored a battle kill....my feelings about that experience would not give me unique knowledge to make my argument any stronger or less stronger than your own. And, Unless you have actually been in a firefight with female marines at your side participating actively in the battle, I would have to say that your contribution to the discussion is no less theoretical than mine is assumed to be.

 

Okay, your first paragraph is inchoate.

Reread what I wrote and you quoted. It was something along the lines of, "combat feels a hell of a lot like murder". Surely you can parse that. There was no moral argument made, thus rendering superfluous your argument that followed.

If I practiced football with females, it would give me a pretty dang good idea what to expect from them in a game. I've practiced combat with females, and I have a pretty dang good idea what to expect in the game.

I know I'm not going to convince you. I don't really care. Your approach to logic makes it impossible. What I will say is that you should defer to those who have experience in a matter when you lack it. Otherwise, you put your firm belief in a hypothetical at a position elevated over reality. But you do what you want.

 

I also would like to point out that I have met quite a few Woman Marines that could have kicked Audie Murphy's butt.

 

Like I said, maybe I've been in all the "wrong" units. Or maybe I just haven't been in the Marine Corps long enough to run across the women who can physically dominate men.

 

I agree. I will take your advice:

General Martin Dempsey: "If members of our military can meet the qualifications for a job -- and let me be clear, I'm not talking about reducing the qualifications for the job -- if they can meet the qualifications for the job, then they should have the right to serve, regardless of creed or color or gender... "

General Dempsey’s awards and decorations include the Bronze Star with “V” Device and Oak Leaf Cluster, the Combat Action Badge, and the Parachutist Badge.

As I stated earlier not all combat positions require you to be the biggest kid on the block.

From Audie Murphy's bio: The 5-foot-5-inch (1.65 m) and 110-pound (50 kg) Murphy tried once again to enlist, but was declined by both the Marines and Army paratroopers as too short and underweight. The Navy also turned him down for being underweight.[4] The United States Army finally accepted him,[5] and he was inducted at Greenville[8] and sent to Camp Wolters, Texas for basic training.[1][8] During a session of close order drill, he passed out. His company commander tried to have him transferred to a cook and bakers' school but Murphy insisted on becoming a combat soldier, and after 13 weeks of basic training, he was sent to Fort Meade, Maryland for advanced infantry training.

Decorations include: Medal of Honor, Distinguished Service Cross, Silver Star with one bronze oak leaf cluster, Legion of Merit, Bronze Star with "V" Device and one bronze oak leaf cluster, Purple Heart with two bronze oak leaf clusters.

People should be judged as individuals not viewed as generic groups through one mans limited view of the world.

 

Audie Murphy was the exception to the rule, as were a few others. The minimum standards are there for a reason. No one knows the heart of a man in battle unless he has been tested. Hell even the man or woman that is in the midst of battle knows what he/she will do when the time comes. You can see it in everyday life as well. How many times has a friend of yours said I will do this if it ever happens to me,and when the time comes they tuck tail and run. Even though women may be mentally ,physically ,or emotionally strong enough to be in combat arms I don't think most men are capable of serving in the front lines with women. We (men) are inherently protectors and I think if women were in the mix some of us could make bad decisions that would affect the team trying to make sure the woman was taken care of no matter how tough she is.Do I think this is the right attitude no ,but I do think it is human nature.

 

Dempsey also thinks sexual assaults will decrease with women in combat roles. I'll wager him a paycheck and wait for four years to see who is right on that one.

I know not all combat positions require one to be the biggest or baddest. Women have been flying combat missions for years. Listen, if you've served over 4 years in any military and in a combat zone, you can continue to tell me what combat is and isn't. If you've never served in any military, it would be great if you would refrain. Otherwise, like others, you show the arrogance of prioritizing your feelings and what you have read over actual experience.

Audie Murphy was highly decorated for shooting people. I think I've stated a number of times that there is more to combat than shooting.

You might not be aware of this, but generals are almost invariably politicians. Of course they are going to say great things about the policies of the commander in chief. Otherwise, they get canned (see MacArthur during Korean War).

Finally, women will never be required to meet the same objective standards. What will happen is that they will be required to get the same number of points, but how they earn those points will be different. I agree people should be judged as individuals, but nothing about this decision encourages that. It will be another type of affirmative action wherein there will be females who score higher than other females will be put in combat roles.

P.S. Unless you are omniscient, you have the same limitations on your worldview that the rest of we humans have.

 

Any doubts about men and women what they do in foxholes?

Soldiers Getting Pregnant While Deployed: A Military Issue for All

Soldiers Getting Pregnant While Deployed: A Military Issue for All - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

"There has been such a problem with soldiers conceiving while deployed that the military considered making the offense a court martial.
What appears to be problem for two people becomes everyone's problem. This behavior definitely needs to be solved for the integrity of the United States Military."

This is only one of hundreds of reports on line from Military sources as well as others, this is from 2009.

SO much for the professional statements about coharts in a combat area and how "That just would not happen. Forget what Mommie and Daddy told you about the Easter Bunny, wake up and give the purity ideas a rest, it just aint so.

So you folks that think war is simple and people are not sexual in combat are way behind the times. Like thousands of years.