I've heard that the CIC is actually planning on attending the graduation of the ranger school class with the first women students in it. Hmmmmm... If he's coming, and they haven't passed yet, what does that mean? THEY WILL PASS, regardless of if they did it to standard or not.
http://www.havokjournal.com/nation/president-plans-to-attend-ranger-school-ceremony-this-guarantees-first-women-will-graduate/And this:
http://www.havokjournal.com/culture/women-in-the-infantry-getting-out-of-the-weeds/It is becoming more and more apparent that women are going to be in combat arms. Whether it makes the units more combat effective or not is irregardless, that's what 'the people want'. Well what the people want may wind up biting them in the ass. This quote really got me:
“Common people don’t reflect about the future of infantry. But they certainly do about the place of women in society. And the military would gain nothing by pitting their operational requirements against the wider demands of the public opinion; lest they be insincere about narrowing the civilian-military gap. We are too often left with the disturbing impression that male officers are desperately scrambling around for arguments against what merely amounts to a democratic choice.
Armed forces only reflect what society is and where it wants to go. Officers cannot complain about their growing disconnect from civilians on the one hand, and staunchly refuse to accommodate their preferences on the other. This is not the way democracy works. People want their military to remain a true and fair emanation of the society they live in. It is not as if they were two separate entities.â€
The bolded is pure B.S. I don't want the Army, the organization tasked to fight and win the NATION's WARS, to be 'a fair emanation of the society', I want it to be filled with the baddest, meanest MFers around who will kick @ss and take names. This USED to be selected, based on a very simple method, you either made the cut, or you didn't. PERIOD.
I have stated in other posts on this website how FM 3-21.10 states that the infantryman's load is "30% of their total bodyweight or 72 pounds, not to exceed 72 pounds." As an Infantryman of (almost) 19 years, I have NEVER not had a load of at least 72 pounds. For an average woman of 150 pounds let's say (being generous on the weight) that is 48 percent of their bodyweight. This is not negotiable, this is FACT.
Carrying that much weight puts a toll on the male body, we are glorified pack mules. and our knees and backs get messed up from it... And that is with extra muscle mass to help with our overall bodyweight ratio. Woman are GOING to get broken down before men, it's GOING to happen.
Women will get pregnant, not from rapes (I'm not implying that all men are rapists like this radical feminist did)
http://www.jessicascott.net/blog/2014/08/dear-female-military-members-stop-blaming-other-women-for-sexual-assault/ But as a natural function of life. And when they do, they are immediately non-deployable. Tell me, how does it make the unit combat effective to have a squad leader, platoon sergeant, platoon leader, first sergeant, or company commander NON-DEPLOYABLE, in a rapidly deployable unit like 75th RR, the SF Groups, or SFOD-D? Support units are not held to the same standards of deployability, and so generally can handle the non-deployability of a key leader better.
All this social engineering of the military is thrown everything into disarry. Now, we can't take the most qualified candidates based on their overall performance, and create a cohesive team from it. Nope, we're going to have to have a quota of how many of this gender will be allowed, how many of this ethnicity, how many of this sexual orientation... All of which does NOTHING to build a team.
Rant off, I am off the soapbox. I am just really, really ticked with what I am seeing as a deliberate attempt to destroy our military as a fighting force... All so liberals can 'feel good' about something.
