Allen West: “Not a chance” I will apologize to Debbie Wasserman Schultz
posted at 6:00 pm on July 21, 2011 by Tina Korbe
I’m beginning to think commenter Terrie, who yesterday said Allen West is the new Chuck Norris, might be onto something.
“No. 1, I have to protect my personal honor, as well as the honor of this nation,” West said today on Fox News. “It comes to a point when I have to stand and I have to defend myself and I can be very direct in my language, but so be it. The folks back in our districts know about these attacks, they know about this history, and enough is enough. … I stand by what I said. She was the one who released it out to the media. I had no intention of that happening.”
Related Posts:
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Women In Combat: 80% Does NOT Equal 100%.
M2RB: Goo Goo Dolls
Resist We Much on January 24, 2013 at 3:19 PM
With all due respect, (And I honestly mean that respectfully) the question here really is not, do women have the spirit, courage or physical strength to fight. They unquestionably do. What is at question is, do they have the physical stamina to sustain a long duration fighting required to be in a combat role. The answer to that question is undeniably no.
SWalker on January 24, 2013 at 3:21 PM
So, do you want to eliminate all other requirements for combat training? Should the US military save money and stop teaching/testing anything other than shooting?
blink on January 24, 2013 at 3:21 PM
Yes, I have the a rack of fruit salad, if that is your point. My point is to simply say I’ve seen women perform in areas they weren’t “suppose to”. I believe they are as capable, for
who are willing.
Limerick on January 24, 2013 at 3:23 PM
That’s fine. You don’t have to.
And the gratuitous shot at the end. Well played, Rose. I’m sure you’ll make some man a happy widower one day.
chumpThreads on January 24, 2013 at 3:25 PM
And with all do respect back I take your points humbly and with a promise to reflect on them. That is what discussion is about, I believe.
Limerick on January 24, 2013 at 3:26 PM
Chump, one good reason from you. Just one good reason. You haven’t presented even one so far.
Bmore on January 24, 2013 at 3:30 PM
Sorry chump, didn’t mean to promote you. Should have read chump.
Bmore on January 24, 2013 at 3:31 PM
Many comments about women signing up for selective service (draft) and such. It is an all volunteer force, and will (IMO) remain such for quite a while.
The problem here isn’t if they can or cannot lift a 270lb man out of a burning tank, or shoot straight, or stand to pee. The question I have to ask is why, if a woman chooses to join the military, does she get to choose whether or not to serve in a “front-line”/combat unit, while a male counterpart goes to where he is ASSIGNED?
Can’t have it both ways. If you join this all volunteer force, you get orders to serve where your talents and abilities best fill the needs of the service. Been doing it for 20 years, and I never recieved a set of requests – always a set of orders.
Hueydriver on January 24, 2013 at 3:32 PM
I think the standards for women should be appropriate for women. The idea that women have to perform to the exact physical requirements as men is a red herring. If the ability to ovulate was a requirement for being in the military, how many men would be wearing the uniform? That’s a tongue-in-cheek point, but it illustrates the fallacy that because women have different physical abilities from men they cannot be effective in combat.
chumpThreads on January 24, 2013 at 3:34 PM
Right to the point, Rose.
Cleombrotus on January 24, 2013 at 3:35 PM
Class.
Thank you for your service.
teacherman on January 24, 2013 at 3:35 PM
People who applaud this decision don’t care about equality or the military men and women. If they did they would be demanding that equal physical standards be put in place before making a unilateral decision like this was made.
People who applaud this only care about how they can drink their koolaid and think they are “supporting” equality.
I hope it gives them all the warm fuzzies while people like me have to live with more coffins coming home because some chick could carry her own weight..
Orwell was right when he said some animals are more equal than others.
melle1228 on January 24, 2013 at 3:35 PM
The great Democratic leader Woodrow Wilson segregated the Armed Forces. How did that social experiment work out?
cptacek on January 24, 2013 at 3:35 PM
Proof you are a shallow thinking bed wetting idiot.
Bmore on January 24, 2013 at 3:37 PM
So you aren’t for equality at all. You acknowledge that women can not live up to in physical standards.
So when it is required that 125 lbs is to be carried by an MOS- let me guess you expect the men to carry the extra weight that the little woman can’t.
I really hate people like you.. And yes I said hate, because it is idiots like you who get people in the military community killed.
melle1228 on January 24, 2013 at 3:37 PM
You tell that line of crap to the enemy chump. You are such a little punk ass weasel.
Bmore on January 24, 2013 at 3:38 PM
Riiiight, ‘cuz the enemy on the battlefield is going to spot women a few points.
I guess that we should reduce their gear pack, too.
Read my post above with the link to see the disparities of what is required between men and women now…and we’re not even talking about actual combat.
80% =/= 100%
BTW, do you believe in “equal work for equal pay” or should women be paid 100% of what men earn even if they cannot do the job?
Why are you waging a war on women and equality?
Resist We Much on January 24, 2013 at 3:39 PM
And my point was to question your original comparison. There is, as you know, a lot of difference between spending days in the field in a foreign country than to serving in your hometown and being able to go home every night for starters.
I think we need to seriously consider the physical capablities much more than is being done. I do know that women in the service were not always expected to perform the same duties or as well as men. Let’s see if that changes and if they are truly up to it.
Deanna on January 24, 2013 at 3:40 PM
Because people like Chump don’t care about equality. They want change for change sake, and they don’t care how it effects people.
I love that he wants a “women’s” standard in infantry.
melle1228 on January 24, 2013 at 3:41 PM
German soldiers at Stalingrad would undeniably disagree with you. The Russian women fighters were ferocious and killed plenty of Germans.
chumpThreads on January 24, 2013 at 3:41 PM
Old/busted:
New hotness:
rogerb on January 24, 2013 at 3:42 PM
False analogies chump, you can’t come up with a decent reason. Not a good idea have made it out of your ass, not even one. Worst troll ever award to chump. Pathetic.
Bmore on January 24, 2013 at 3:42 PM
chumpThreads on January 24, 2013 at 3:25 PM
A real man would not want to see women drafted and put on the front lines. If that offends you, too bad.
Rose on January 24, 2013 at 3:42 PM
chumpThreads on January 24, 2013 at 3:41 PM
They were protecting their homeland, you village idiot.
kingsjester on January 24, 2013 at 3:42 PM
You are an idiot.
Bmore on January 24, 2013 at 3:43 PM
Indeed it is. Our society is unfortunately suffering a curious and deadly malady. Our technology has sanitized the concept of war and our politicians have made it a political opportunity for self advancement and profit to the point that the majority of our citizens no longer understand what war or combat really are. To most, they amount to little more than a police operation, clean and sterile easily cleaned up afterwards.
Reality however is something entirely different. No matter what you do, no matter how much your technology advances, there is no kind or gentle way to kill a human being. War and it’s eldest child combat are nothing less than the act of killing those who oppose you and breaking their stuff until they cease all resistance. It is not police work, it is the business of killing those who are actively aggressively resisting being killed. The more those resisting resist, the uglier the killing gets. That is reality.
It is seldom a quick clean easy task to accomplish, it drags on and on and on getting more and more difficult as each day passes. It is something that should never be entered into quickly if it can be avoided and should always be a last resort. But television coverage of the highlights and movie and video games have clouded peoples perceptions of what war and combat really are. It is the ugliest most violent business mankind has ever created and that is not going to change any time soon.
SWalker on January 24, 2013 at 3:43 PM
No. The question is “what will best allow our military to complete their mission?” If the military was clamoring for more women in its ranks because “they can do _____ better, and we need them” then this discussion would be warranted. They are not.
cptacek on January 24, 2013 at 3:45 PM
Say, I really enjoy this being ignored thingy from you chump. I can talk at you all day. You sniveling little coward. Lol!
Bmore on January 24, 2013 at 3:45 PM
Two threads, not one good reason given yet.
Bmore on January 24, 2013 at 3:45 PM
I would say that’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard – but dante has been posting a lot lately.
The physical requirements of military combat positions are funtional requirements – the physical abilities necessary to do that specific job no matter who you are. Those requirements should not be changed just because you want certain people to be in the job – or you decrease the effectiveness of those units – and that results in people getting killed.
If a combat position requires that you be able to carry a 110 pound equipment pack, and any particular female wanting that job can do so, then I say give her a shot at it. But there should be no dumbing down of requirements and no excuses if the person can’t hack it.
dentarthurdent on January 24, 2013 at 3:47 PM
Bmore on January 24, 2013 at 3:45 PM
He’s ignoring me, too.
If he is old enough to remember Vietnam, why do his posts read like a 14 year old’s?
kingsjester on January 24, 2013 at 3:47 PM
This ^^
melle1228 on January 24, 2013 at 3:48 PM
Your grasp of history is pathetic. Women did not serve in infantry roles in the Russian Army, they served as snipers and they suffered 10 times the corresponding fatalities as the Russian men. Did they make effective snipers? Yes. Were they under the same physical duress as the Russian men, unequivocally no.
SWalker on January 24, 2013 at 3:48 PM
You’ve already played the manliness card, Rose.
Null and void.
What else you got?
chumpThreads on January 24, 2013 at 3:49 PM
From the headlines thread:
cptacek on January 24, 2013 at 3:49 PM
Lol! He is a piece of work. 14 is being generous by the way. I must say I could come to enjoy the abuse he enjoys taking. Guess he is happy being the whipping post. Fine by me. ; )
Bmore on January 24, 2013 at 3:49 PM
Yeah Rose, cause chump ain’t got nothing. Lol! Not one good reason. Just trolling.
Bmore on January 24, 2013 at 3:50 PM
West might have some credibility if he wasn’t drummed out on an article 15.
Mr. Arrogant on January 24, 2013 at 3:52 PM
Rose, don’t worry–chump doesn’t even know what manliness is much less have a card for it..
melle1228 on January 24, 2013 at 3:53 PM
The WWII Russian army is hardly one to emulate. Forget the movies, remember instead the fact they even raped concentration camp victims.
Deanna on January 24, 2013 at 3:53 PM
chumpThreads on January 24, 2013 at 3:49 PM
I must have really hit a nerve. And why are you ignoring Bmore and Kingjester, do you think middle aged women are easier to argue with?
Rose on January 24, 2013 at 3:54 PM
Rose on January 24, 2013 at 3:54 PM
It’s that manliness deficiency.
kingsjester on January 24, 2013 at 3:55 PM
I’ve got news for you, chump. The military STILL segregates people. In the Marines, female recruits can only go to boot camp at Parris Island. Males go to either MCRD or Parris depending upon which side of the Mississippi River they live.
As for Progressives and segregation, who the hell do you think segregated the Federal government and the military (after the Civil War and until Proggie, Wilson, became POTUS the races served together)…
Resist We Much on January 24, 2013 at 3:56 PM
And BTW – when I say “give her a shot at it” – I really mean a shot at going through the training program. Then let’s see how she stands up to the men in pugil stick and hand-to-hand combat – cuz the enemy sure as he!! aint going to make sure she only fights other women on the battlefield.
dentarthurdent on January 24, 2013 at 3:57 PM
At this point I actually have more respect for you than I do for them.
You’ve argued your point and I disagree. That’s how arguments work. You haven’t resorted to gratuitous name calling and slagging, nor I with you. I look forward to future exchanges of ideas with you.
chumpThreads on January 24, 2013 at 4:01 PM
Progressives aren’t racists?
Pic of the Day: The Party of Slavery, Secession, and Segregation Returns To Its Racist Roots
M2RB: Bob Marley
Resist We Much on January 24, 2013 at 4:02 PM
I bet he says that about all unanimous decisions by the the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
verbaluce on January 24, 2013 at 4:02 PM
So, you want TWO sets of physical requirements for women as me. You want women to be able to graduate from combat training programs without having to meet the same physical standards as all the students are currently required to meet.
If it’s ok for some students to fail to meet the training programs physical requirements, then why do those programs currently have such requirements?
Are you telling me that we can be saving money, but allowing some of the students to have lower physical requirements than others????
Why should women be the only ones allowed to fail to “perform to the exact physical requirements” that the program requires?
None. Let me know if there are any programs in the military in which this requirement makes sense.
THANKS FOR MAKING MY POINT!
I think I see what’s going on here. You think that physical requirements that the military has are arbitrary or something.
You know nothing about the military so you don’t know that physical requirements have been developed via years and years of experience. High physical requirements are expense. Low physical requirements are cheaper, but produce less capable graduates. Training program requirements are specifically chosen for the type of training and type of mission that the graduates receive.
So, you’re definitely claiming that the currently physical standards that are required shouldn’t be required? How do you know this? Are you an expert in this field?
Do you think it should be required for a Navy or Coast Guard rescue swimmer to be able to do 9 pull-ups? Do YOU want to risk the life of the swimmer and potential rescuee by being the person that orders the military to waive this requirement for women?
Or, do you think that all rescue swimmers should be required to meet the same physical standards? If you ever needed a rescue swimmer, would YOU want one that didn’t meet the same physical standards? Yes or No?
Thanks for revealing your ignorance, chumpThreads.
blink on January 24, 2013 at 4:03 PM
Shouldn’t women, who are going to serve in ground combat roles, meet the same physical requirements as men?
Even now, the military admits that women are not as strong, as a whole, as men. The Army PFT requires recruits to complete a 15:12 2-mile run or better. The Rangers prefers a 2 miler in under 13 minutes. For women in the Marine Corps, the PFT spots them 3:22 minutes off the top for the 17-26 age group, 2:30 minutes in the 27-31 group, 2:36 in the 32-36 group, etc., for the 3-mile run. The Navy requires a time under 12:51 for males under age 30 and under 15:26 for women under 30.
Engaging in ground combat is not like playing golf. You’re not handicapped. The enemy isn’t going to give women a 20-point handicap.
Resist We Much on January 24, 2013 at 4:06 PM
Not to mention that their losses were equal to everyone else losses combined.
SWalker on January 24, 2013 at 4:06 PM
Now this is just plain funny! The troll says it, it must me so. Lol! Keep up the fine work chump. You are still a coward. See ya on the front line sometime? Lol!
Bmore on January 24, 2013 at 4:08 PM
Speaking of Red Herrings. Who is suggesting that women cannot be in any way effective in combat?
The point is, women who meet a lower standard for physical capabilities will not be AS EFFECTIVE in infantry roles as those who would otherwise meet the same physical requirements as their male counterparts.
There is no military version of the WNBA.
weaselyone on January 24, 2013 at 4:09 PM
What if it cost 3x the amount to train a women for the same job? Should we pay extra for that, or are you ok with filtering our training programs based on certain physical attributes in order to make the training programs more efficient and cost effective.
Should we stop having a fat measurement requirement to get into these programs? After all, some fat people can meet the standards so why not let them try? Maybe because statistically it’s a waste of money to give them a slot in the training program?
blink on January 24, 2013 at 4:09 PM
Rose my apologies for anything I have said that may on the face of it seem confusing. chump and I have quite a history. He doesn’t do well when folks counter him with too good an argument. So pardon me for the interruptions. Very nicely made points on your part by the way. ; )
Bmore on January 24, 2013 at 4:11 PM
OK. We’ll make sure to tell the enemy to only send their female troops; otherwise, IT WOULDN’T BE FAIR.
**eyeroll**
Resist We Much on January 24, 2013 at 4:12 PM
Again, why not give fat people a shot at it?
blink on January 24, 2013 at 4:12 PM
I think the standards for women should be appropriate to the mission.
Only and ignorant idiot would say anything different.
blink on January 24, 2013 at 4:13 PM
The Joint Chiefs are mostly politicians who just happen to be in uniform by the time they get to that level. If the SECDEF or President tells them “this is what I want”, they will all agree to it. We might possibly hear some truth from one of them about this decision after he retires – unless he plans on going fully into politics.
dentarthurdent on January 24, 2013 at 4:13 PM
Yet the women were there and they fought under the same physical conditions as the men did. The Germans showed them no mercy if they were captured and they showed none to the Germans.
I don’t think Russian women are any better than American women. I give them more credit as warrriors than apparently anyone else on this board does.
chumpThreads on January 24, 2013 at 4:14 PM
Also, how about the less acute mental ones who just do not fit in have issues and may have been 4-F prior to this new improved comm,ie Democrat nut case Pres. and his cult members.
Just wrong to 4-F guys like the shooter up at the school in Conn. of late.
brain dead commies,,,,,
APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 24, 2013 at 4:16 PM
Square that circle.
rogerb on January 24, 2013 at 4:17 PM
Let’s not forget this though:
Liam on January 24, 2013 at 4:18 PM
chump
your talking out your ass
APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 24, 2013 at 4:18 PM
If this is true, then why can’t the physical standards for combat be the same?
blink on January 24, 2013 at 4:18 PM
chump thinks war is fair. Lol! Oh Help us please, please help us. I have to leave,my sides are splitting from all the laughter. Keep up the great work chump!
Bmore on January 24, 2013 at 4:19 PM
Read my full comments and I think you’ll get what I’m saying.
Sure – give fat people a shot at the training program (initially) – if they can meet the physical standards for entry. But when they flunk out cuz they can’t hack it – too bad, no excuses, no changing the requirements to allow for their lack of ability.
dentarthurdent on January 24, 2013 at 4:19 PM
Every one is the same in commie nut world.
mad cult growing
APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 24, 2013 at 4:20 PM
Snark, yes. Name calling, no.
chumpThreads on January 24, 2013 at 4:20 PM
What difference does it make?
Liam on January 24, 2013 at 4:21 PM
borg fighters of the commie left
“They will Obey.”
APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 24, 2013 at 4:22 PM
Figure it out.
chumpThreads on January 24, 2013 at 4:23 PM
If you gave us credit as warriors, you would not be intent on holding us to different standards.
The battlefield is no place for affirmative action and you do neither women nor their male comrades any service by demanding it.
Resist We Much on January 24, 2013 at 4:25 PM
Perhaps you have made similar arguments against past elevations of women’s roles in the armed services. And perhaps you later discovered your concerns were unfounded. Fighter pilots maybe?
I trust the military here…especially the infantry leaders who make decisions based on all sorts of factors.
verbaluce on January 24, 2013 at 4:25 PM
Your intent was the same. So, obviously, I already have it figured out.
Liam on January 24, 2013 at 4:25 PM
What these hate American Commie Thugs of the Nut Case Demo-rat Party are leading up to,,,
“Will the Generals order their troops to fire on U.S.?, and will the non coms, Lt.’s, Majors, go along with unconstitutional orders.
They do have a plan.
Just like the people out buying guns, those people are not buying them so that they can turn them in two years down the road.
Obama and the commie rat Democrats are not messing with this so that they can get some nut case pratice in.
They do hate, and it shows more day by day.
APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 24, 2013 at 4:26 PM
Pwnd by too many women playing your xbox?
can_con on January 24, 2013 at 4:26 PM
I have never watched “Platoon” but seems some like chump and verbs out of balance need to from what I hear of that movie.
Forgive them for they know nothing of what they post.
APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 24, 2013 at 4:28 PM
O, would that our military really was used for this purpose! Instead, we are worried that conquering our enemies might be looked upon as…not nice.
TXJenny on January 24, 2013 at 4:28 PM
This is where your profound ignorance of history rears it’s ugly head. The Russian women serving as snipers did not fight under the same physical condition as the Russian infantry men did. They carried only their rifles and 50 or so rounds of ammunition for it. They fired on the Germans from concealed positions in urban settings. What they were not, was infantry combat troops and they did not serve under identical physical conditions.
Furthermore you are far from having any respect for those women, you are using them in a false narrative to “win” your argument. that is nothing even remotely close to respect.
I on the other hand actually respect them for what they did do. they were courageous and fierce and inflicted a great deal of damage on the Germans, but I will not disgrace their accomplishments by attributing to them things that they did not do or were not. And what they most assuredly were not, was combat infantry troops.
SWalker on January 24, 2013 at 4:28 PM
Although I am not for women in direct combat roles, I’m wondering why so many folks seem worried that ALL female soldiers want to fill combat roles. In fact, I doubt very many females even covet those jobs. Most female soldiers are content to fill support roles that are every bit as important to the lives and safety of our ground troops.
TXJenny on January 24, 2013 at 4:32 PM
We are not worried that they might want to, we are worried that they might be required to. Women are not bared from playing in the NFL or the NBA, but they do not do so for a very good reason.
SWalker on January 24, 2013 at 4:37 PM
“Perhaps” I haven’t. I don’t have a problem with women serving in ground combat roles PROVIDED THEY ARE HELD TO THE SAME STANDARDS AND DO NOT UNNECESSARILY ENDANGER THEMSELVES OR OTHERS.
Can the blind be fighter pilots? Can those, who only speak one language, serve as interpreters/translators?
The answers to both are NO…and I didn’t make those rules. They ARE the rules.
“Perhaps,” you should read “Women In Combat: 80% Does NOT Equal 100%” to understand my full position on the matter.
PS: As far back as I can remember, women have been fighter pilots. “Perhaps,” you are MUCH older than me.
Resist We Much on January 24, 2013 at 4:40 PM
That’s because Stalin was in complete control of the psychological warfare program against the population of his country.
While the Obama administration still desperately needs outside help.
logis on January 24, 2013 at 4:41 PM
A Military Police unit?
Where were they patrolling and what does that have to do with combat?
sharrukin on January 24, 2013 at 4:44 PM
My biggest concern is that they will likely weaken the physical requirements for combat positions just so that women can pass, and that will get people killed.
Women have proven capable in many positions in the military where the ability to carry a 120 pound pack and do hand-to-hand combat with the enemy are not required – flying planes, operating computer systems of various kinds, controlling satellites, etc.
But to reduce the effectiveness of ground combat units by reducing the physical standards to let women in is sheer lunacy.
dentarthurdent on January 24, 2013 at 4:46 PM
There are two kinds of senior officers: warriors – and politicians. In an administration like this, it is only the politician who will be given that extra star.
TarheelBen on January 24, 2013 at 4:49 PM
Even though I really wanted to be a fighter pilot, I was not allowed to because my eyes weren’t good enough, in fact they wouldn’t even let me be a navigator. I also was not in good enough physical condition to be able to get through something like Ranger training (Dirty Harry – “A man’s got to know his limitations”). So I went into space operations (tracking satellites – computer work). Life’s tough – you can’t always do what you might want.
Every military specialty code has spcific requirements to be able to successfully fulfill the mission. If you can meet the existing requirements – go for it. If not, find something else.
dentarthurdent on January 24, 2013 at 4:56 PM
I specifically referenced Stalingrad.
Burned out buildings, shattered streets, shell craters.
Cold, hunger, fear and pain.
You are drawing a distinction without a difference. Women are fully capable of fighting under combat conditions. The American military knows it and has now formalized the practice.
chumpThreads on January 24, 2013 at 4:58 PM
Perhaps it would be more prudent to see women’s sports phased out and women forced to play in the men’s leagues before we do the same in combat forces? Let’s see if women tennis players can do anything against the men … or women basketball players can make it in the NBA … or women golfers can qualify for any PGA events before we declare that women on the front lines can play in the men’s league for life-threatening and important situations for our national security. That would be prudent. After all, if it’s equality that women want then there shouldn’t be any women’s leagues for anything. If they can’t compete with the men – if women sprinters can’t crack the top 500 sprinters int he world or women high jumpers can’t qualify for any team – then let that be known to all and put to rest this idiotic idea that women can perform these sorts of activities at the same level of men.
The idiocy level that this nation – the American Socialist Superstate – has reached is truly mind-blowing. Of course, when you have an ineligible, 84 IQ, affirmative action, America-hating imbecile running the Executive branch as if he were the reincarnation of Sukarno I guess it all fits.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 24, 2013 at 4:58 PM
Actually, I think he believes he is Sauron ruling the world from Mordor on the Potomac…
SWalker on January 24, 2013 at 5:03 PM
So are twelve year old boys as the fighting in Africa demonstrates. That doesn’t translate to the wisdom, or need of those boys serving in combat.
sharrukin on January 24, 2013 at 5:05 PM
You don’t remember The Red Baroness?
Man…maybe I am old.
verbaluce on January 24, 2013 at 5:08 PM
And exactly who has proposed that 12-year-olds be used in the American armed forces?
chumpThreads on January 24, 2013 at 5:08 PM
I wouldn’t be surprised if you had. It makes just as much sense.
sharrukin on January 24, 2013 at 5:09 PM
Another Red Herring. No one is saying women can’t handle the environment, or can’t perform at all.
Put Tina Charles in an NBA game and she could probably scrap out a few rebounds and a few points. No question she could perform, but we wouldn’t expect her to perform at the same level as any other starting center in the NBA.
Explain to me how a woman who does not meet the same physical requirements as men would perform just as well in an infantry roll as a woman who does meet the same physical requirements.
weaselyone on January 24, 2013 at 5:11 PM
Yeppers.
Haven’t Progs ever heard of the 4-F classification? Men, who could not meet basic physical qualifications, were barred from military service. If one is incapable of performing the task, then s/he shouldn’t be permitted to have the job. Progs talk a big talk about the “collective,” but one weak link can kill the collective. If a woman can perform to the same standards for ground combat that men are held to, then they have every right to serve in that role.
All women aren’t weaker than men (I have no doubt that Lynndie England could beat Bradley Manning’s ass to a pulp), but most are. “Weakening-down” the military to appease a few FemiNazis harms all of us in “the collective” – and it IS a few. There is no great demand within the military for women to serve in ground combat roles. In fact, according to a poll last year, only 1% of women currently in the armed forces even want to serve in combat.
If the women of the 1% can meet the requirements that 100% of men in the military must, then more power to them relative to combat service. If not, then they should perform other tasks that are equally important like intelligence or operating weapons systems that do not require physical strength. It is NOT discriminatory to demand ALL combat troops meet certain physical requirements. What’s discriminatory is the current “affirmative action” in the military where 80% becomes 100% for women. As a woman, THAT offends me deeply.
Resist We Much on January 24, 2013 at 5:13 PM
i would add that for women in combat units it’s far more than just being able to perform at an adequate level (which they can’t). It’s the idea of close quarters living, screwing around, lack of concentration and distraction, … and all the other things that we all know happen when men and women are forced to live closely together, especially under high-stress situations.
The performance question would bring up the idea of women-only combat units, perhaps, but co-ed units present such serious social problems that we shouldn’t even get to the performance issue (though the women fail miserably at that as we have all been pointing out with just about every sport on Earth).
We have yet to really feel the problems coming from openly gay soldiers mingling in combat units (with the idiots acting as if gays can control their sexual impulses more than heterosexuals can – which is beyond a joke for anyone who knows how incredibly wild gay sexual lifestyles are) and now they want to throw women in the mix so everyone can have sexual tensions all over the place …
It’s all quite incredible, though not surprising seeing the dolts, fools, retards and criminals that this nation has elected to office. This is one of the saddest, most pathetic points in recorded history. We shall all be laughing stocks and cautionary tales for thousands of years into the future – even those of us who oppose these worms and their idiocy.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 24, 2013 at 5:21 PM
You are arguing based on a faulty analogy. Your example is about a situation where they HAD to fight – or die – and most died. There was no choice for any of them, male or female, and those with the lesser physical abilities died first. Just because people were forced into combat in the middle of that war just to have a chance to survive, does not justify putting unqualified people into modern combat now. That’s not how our military operates – well at least it WASN’T how we operated – until now.
dentarthurdent on January 24, 2013 at 5:23 PM
Nope. The only “Red Baroness” that I can think of off the top of my head is Catherine, Baroness Ashton of Upholland. She might be a wee bit pinker than Stalin.
Resist We Much on January 24, 2013 at 5:27 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »