Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.
McRaven issues statement to SOF Soldiers Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: McRaven issues statement to SOF Soldiers

    Originally posted by Mungo View Post
    I wonder why you felt it was necessary to describe him in this way.
    No reason. If it was any of type of individual (e.g. Indian, black, hispanic), I would have wrote it the same way. If you want further clarification, feel free to PM me.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: McRaven issues statement to SOF Soldiers

      Originally posted by RedLeg View Post
      The sky didn't fall after the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, and I don't see the sky falling now.
      Why is a falling sky the sole criterion for evaluation of a policy? The sky never fell when DADT was in place, so by that reasoning we should have kept it.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: McRaven issues statement to SOF Soldiers

        Originally posted by matthew.ritchie View Post
        Why is a falling sky the sole criterion for evaluation of a policy? The sky never fell when DADT was in place, so by that reasoning we should have kept it.
        Becuase the typical "who's d*** is bigger" argument thrown out by combat arms gets old. It's the same tired arguments that have been used against the CAB, Sapper tab, DADT, black berets, and now females. I honestly haven't seen one well thought out reason against it or any of the others I mentioned. Females serve in 200 and somthing other MOS/branches but theres 2 they can't?

        But using your argument, a very intelligent woman couldn't be a FDO of a firing battery. A very intelligent woman could not be a Stinger Platoon Leader.

        Oh and before some trots out the "standards", go look at what the actual standards are. They're the Army standards they have to meet to be in the Army to begin with.
        Last edited by SF Hunter; July 11th, 2013, 10:31 AM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: McRaven issues statement to SOF Soldiers

          Originally posted by RedLeg View Post
          Becuase the typical "who's d*** is bigger" argument thrown out by combat arms gets old. It's the same tired arguments that have been used against the CAB, Sapper tab, DADT, black berets, and now females. I honestly haven't seen one well thought out reason against it or any of the others I mentioned. Females serve in 200 and somthing other MOS/branches but theres 2 they can't?

          But using your argument, a very intelligent woman couldn't be a FDO of a firing battery. A very intelligent woman could not be a Stinger Platoon Leader.

          Oh and before some trots out the "standards", go look at what the actual standards are. They're the Army standards they have to meet to be in the Army to begin with.
          The physical differences between men and women are painfully obvious. If a gender neutral test is created it will indeed lower the standards across the board in order to allow females into combat arms. How is that so hard to see? The physical requirements of the infantry mission are higher than that of the support MOS'. The physical requirements of the SOF mission is far greater than of the infantry. Lowering the entry standards and the standards to stay reduce the overall combat effectiveness of the fighting force. Nobody goes to Ranger School because its easy, people go because its hard and the course holds the highest of standards. High standards should be safeguarded by every single person that ever had to meet them, not thrown out the window in a second to appease a political base. I find it interesting that neither of the two of our top 4 stars that are pushing for this change wear a Ranger tab.......
          Last edited by SF Hunter; July 11th, 2013, 10:32 AM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: McRaven issues statement to SOF Soldiers

            I've made this same post multiple times.....and it still holds true.

            "Contrary to popular belief for the most part the problem with women in direct combat has nothing to do with the women. It's the men that are the problem. You see people cannot change how the feel, or how they react. It's human nature. A man, no matter who you are, is programmed to protect a female. It's human insticnt when in a dangerous situation for a male to protect his female counter. This type of behavior is not conducive to combat operations. SSG Joe Snuffy who is an infantry squad leader may be on a mission deep in a hot zone, and when sh1t hits the fan, that one female on his team who is injured will become his priority. The mission will instantly become second in nature, and this just cannot happen.

            Disclaimer: The next paragraph in no way shape or form is intended to downgrade or minimize anyones combat experience. I am merely pointing out differences in operations. I understand there is still danger, and I again am not taking anything away from any of you who have served in OIF OEF....

            BUT, the people who say women are in combat anyway are highly mistaken. Yes, it is still dangerous in Iraq and Afghnaistan. But the statement President Bush made back in early 2003 that everyone mocks when he stated major combat operations are over, was TRUE. It was true in the nature to offensive combat operations. OEF and OIF are unlike any other combat enviroment we have seen. It is no longer a linear battlefield with the good guys on one side and the bad guys on other side. We are both everywhere. The stipulations that prevent women in direct combat were not designed in lieu of this modern war. It was designed based of the concepts of a linear battlefield and offensive movements. The real war, in terms of active combat ended once we started building bases in Iraq.

            In March of 2002 I was on a major combat operations (Operation Anaconda) in which we were in the middle of the mountains in the middle of no where on an offensive movement (a linear battlefield). There were no women with us. This is an example of what direct combat is. This is something that has been experienced by maybe 1% of even our combat arms branches only due to the way the modern conflicts oeprated.

            When these rules were made no one thought about IED's and how everyone would eventually be in equal danger regardless of MOS.

            To change the current doctrine allowing women to serve in direct combat units (units that do offensive actions) would be a grave mistake should we have to invade another country on an offensive operation. (with a linear battlefied)"
            Last edited by realitycheck; July 11th, 2013, 09:17 AM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: McRaven issues statement to SOF Soldiers

              This is going to become a Combat Arms vs Support Branch argument in which there is no end.

              This has been discussed on here before without any consensus or benefit to enlisting new soldiers into the NG.

              So, before it becomes a poo slinging contest.....

              >>CLICK<<

              Comment

              Working...
              X