Former Joint Chiefs chair: Time to end DADT

I don’t trust people who harm others . . . to perform the duties of the military.

Yeah, we wouldn’t want to have people who harm others in a position where their job would be to kill others. Makes no sense at all.

(just joshing with you)

I understand your point, but my point is that having sex with a 9-yr old is only considered “bad” or “harmful” because our society has made that “moral” determination. Other societies have allowed 9-yr olds to marry, have sex and have made the “moral” determination that such activity is OK.

You don’t want them as a soldier because you believe they are engaging in immoral acts that are harmful, which, in your estimation, makes them untrustworthy to carry out the duties of a soldier.

But, that really isn’t any different than other not wanting an open homosexual as a soldier because they believe that that individual is engaging in immoral acts that are harmful . . . etc.

The issue isn’t military performance, the issue is acceptance of a particular act or lifestyle. The military is simply an inappropriate venue for engaging in that argument. Thus, the oft repeated argument that we should not be using the military as a petri dish for social experimentation.

Fatal on June 19, 2009 at 8:22 PM

We’ll just agree to different perspectives. Marines of the female persuasion run almost the exact same Physical Fitness Test the male Marines do. The only difference is males do pull ups and females do a timed flexed arm hang, which if you have ever done it is no joke.

Hmm, considering the fact that I attended college as a Marine Option and asked for a service change in order to fly the F-14, I think I might have a good handle on the “perspectives”. I was there, in the service, when woman first started being integrated. I know exactly what happened, what transpired, what was changed and how it was kept quiet.

The physical fitness test was downgraded for everyone because the woman could not meet the current standards. Even then, although the women took “Nearly” the same test, their standards for passing were less than those for the males. (and a flexed arm hang is exceedingly simply in comparison to the 20+ pull-ups we were required to do)

I also happened to be a flight instructor when women were integrated into the cockpits of combat aircraft. I was required to give them extra instruction, extra practice and extra consideration to prevent them from failing when their performance levels would have gotten any male student washed out.

I investigated the accident where 3 of my male students were killed because a female, who had failed over and over and over, was simply NOT allowed to be washed out because there weren’t enough of them to meet the numbers required by the powers that be.

As I said in my very first post, there ARE women who COULD have met the standards then in place, there just were not very many of them. Not enough to meet the demands of the politicians and the P.C. police.

I also know that in a combat situation on a Navy Ship, having female sailors on board is going to cost lives. I’ve been privy to the studies and reports that show the lack of upper body strength in female sailors will prevent them from effectively evacuating injured crew-mates from damaged compartments, particularly when combat settings are in force for hatches and compartmental security.

The powers that be have decided that it is worth the cost of the lives of my troops, of my sailors, of my crewmates, to make sure that women are represented in the military services.

I lived through the enforcement of one social experiment in the military, I am not willing to sacrifice any more readiness, any more combat capability or any more LIVES simply to make a tiny percentage of our population “feel” better about themselves.

Fatal on June 20, 2009 at 12:29 AM

I call BS,
Studies also show that women have better fine motor skills, are better firefighters because they can remain in FFE’s longer and consume less O2, are just as good at shiphandling and I have found in my experience, make generally better TAO’s and OOD’s.

You can call BS all you want, but you’re so full of sh*t your eyes are brown.

Better firefighter’s because they can remain in FFE’s longer?! Oh come on, what a load of crap. Not only has that NEVER been a standard for qualification, it doesn’t even make much sense since nearly 100% of males or females in a real shipboard firefighting scenario are going to become physically exhausted and more danger than help long before lack of O2 ever becomes a problem.

How about the fact that they need help manueuvering charged hoses, especially through hatches and compartments? Or that the standard number of personnel on a team was INCREASED simply because of the physical strength aspects of firefighting? Or, how about the fact that not 1 in a hundred (less than 1%) can lift a 170 lb sailor through a Zulu fitting (vs about 75% for males)?

Better OOD’s and TAO’s – WTF? You’re so clueless that you’ve got to have been junior enlisted at best, either that or were in the service well after integration had already taken place. Did you mention the problem with women standing in-port deck watches in muslim countries? Hmm, thought not, you probably aren’t even aware of the issue.

Anyone can claim anything on the internet, but during my 23 years as a Naval Officer, having actually been present and involved in the integration of females into Naval combat forces, I can see through your BS a mile away.

I don’t believe women belong in front-line military units. It causes readiness problems, discipline problems, manning problems, etc, etc. If, as a nation, we insist they be allowed in those positions, then fine, as long as they can meet the SAME standards we expect from males. The problem arises when we have to REDUCE standards to make sure enough females are qualifying, then we all suffer because we are settling for reduced effectiveness in the military that defends our nation and guarantees all of us our freedom.

Fatal on June 20, 2009 at 5:40 PM