While I don't think physical standards should be lowered (in terms of weight carried and able to be dragged), this is one of the most common concerns I've heard and I have to say it's utter bull****. This is the same line of reasoning that kept women out of fire service for years - it's easy to claim an entire gender isn't capable when you cite a fringe occurence that almost no one could do. I'm not saying it's ever going to be a 50/50 split, but a good 5-10% (my best guess based on the make up of most women in fire departments now) of women are as physically capable as strong men, and another 10% at least as capable as the weaker men in the military.
And if those standards are not lowered so the remaining 90-95% of women can get into the grunt field, then you're going to have nothing but complaints. You'll have nothing but lawsuits over this. You'll have daily feminazi protests outside the main gates of Camp Lejeune, Camp Pendleton, and MCB Quantico.
The standards for women are lower for the PFT, which is what is required for promotions among other things. Women don't have to do pull-ups. That's fine. The don't have to do as many crunches. They don't have to be as fast on the 3-mile run as males.
Whether or not they are capable of meeting the same standards as men in that regard is not the issue. This is, quite literally, a matter of life and death. If a woman cannot carry a Marine with 100+ pounds of additional gear on out of a combat zone like we expect males to, she has no right to expect to be in that field. This is not a place where you put affirmative action, or "gender equality" in play. My life is on the line. Others' lives are on the line. Let women have rights over their reproductive organs and the life of the fetus. Don't roll the dice with mine.
Has their army faced any significant problems while using them?
Israel is also surrounded by enemies, and they don't hold to much of this politically-correct BS that pervades our culture. Those women know that if they are fighting, they are doing it for keeps. This isn't like Afghanistan where it's a simple mission of pacification, and if we **** up "Oh well, it's still thousands of miles away". Israel knows that if they ever **** up during a campaign, they don't have the luxury of distance between their enemies and themselves.
The main problem with False Allegation laws/punishment is that they have a cooling affect on the prosecution of the named offense.
Say a woman is raped. She has little evidence.
What should the court's priority be?
Pretty much this is a balancing act.
With heavy punishments there could be a cooling affect on the prosecution of rapists. With no punishments people could bring up rape charges freely.
It seems like the weak punishments are a compromise.
If anything should be looked at, I would look at the evidence rules guiding sexual conduct. They have a bit of potential to be abused.
In such a case where there is little to no evidence, the police would take the statement and investigate the crime on the assumption it happened. No arrest would be made until there was sufficient evidence to convince a judge or a grand jury to issue a warrant.
Women's physical bodies are designed to be able to walk longer than men, men are built for upper body strength. However, that aside we also run into height requirements and the like. There are women who are 6' X'' tall and stronger than their 5' 5'' counter parts.
Even then there are times whenever we women are needed. Quite frankly it was bull when there were women in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan as translators without full protective gear because they weren't considered combat troops and had to borrow gear to be protected. That's just jank and whining. When it comes to enemy territories, especially in places that do not trust male soldiers but need women to talk to women for reconnaissance that's another way for the woman to "pull your ass out of the fire." Not everything begins with a burning humvee, sometimes a firefight can be prevented with good intelligence.
The problem is the women are often already in combat roles in all but name. If certain things are "too rough" then height requirements should be implemented, that would also disqualify certain men as well. The French do this with their military as well as some other forces beyond just for little persons.
Hi, I'd like you to address the question and not say "It's stupid". Also, I'd like you to actually understand the Geneva Convention and the role of translators in the military before spouting this off ever again. Thank you.
I am not surprised at your inability to reason. But as it was when the military finally went through racial integration, it only helps when the racists and misogynists leave. It takes a generation to clean this kind of stupidity out. And the marines will hold the bridge and be the last to change their culture.
And I'm not surprised at how easy you must be to bait by a troll. I feel very confident in saying that if I wanted to, I could sit here all day and watch the river of tears stream forth. Nevertheless, I'll take your lack-of-knowledge and ignorance towards what EAS is, as well as the general attitude of the military towards such a thing. My point had been that these servicemembers probably did leave when their contract ended; no one is going to risk the benefits given after four years of honorable service over this unless their morality is that important to them. You don't have the option to just leave the military without repercussions whenever you want.
That's not even the same letter. I named the letter in my post. How did you manage this?
Actually, you quoted the incorrect letter. The letter you cited actually is about setting the foundation of the federal government, and talks about his fears that if that foundation is not properly laid, then all of it would have been for naught ("To form a new government requires infinite care and unbounded attention; for if the foundation is badly laid, the superstructure must be bad.").
The passage you quoted is actually from his letter to Congress 02 September 1776. In it, he actually says that the standing military is a necessity to safeguard the nation and the freedoms the Congress and the American people fought for. The entire passage actually reads:
"I am persuaded, and as fully convinced as I am of any one fact that has happened, that our liberties must of necessity be greatly hazarded, if not entirely lost, if their defence is left to any but a permanent standing army; I mean, one to exist during the war. Nor would the expense, incident to the support of such a body of troops, as would be competent to almost every exigency, far exceed that, which is daily incurred by calling in succor, and new enlistments, which, when effected, are not attended with any good consequences. Men, who have been free and subject to no control, cannot be reduced to order in an instant; and the privileges and exemptions they claim and will have influence the conduct of others; and the aid derived from them is nearly counterbalanced by the disorder, irregularity, and confusion they occasion."
In fact, 24 September 1776 saw him write a second letter, in which e addresses the concept of militia being the only source of defense for the nation:
"To place any dependence upon militia is assuredly resting upon a broken staff. Men just dragged from the tender scenes of domestic life, unaccustomed to the din of arms, totally unacquainted with every kind of military skill ... makes them timid and ready to fly from their own shadows."
Washington had respect for the militia as they had been instrumental in many fights. But those militia had also been hardened, in many cases, to previous wars (the French and Indian War, for example, was relatively recent, and Washington himself had fought in it). Washington did not believe that such militia could be counted upon in the future, and he expected that if we relied solely on that type of fighting force, we would be doomed.
I'm very happy that this was finally done. I think that any American service member, regardless of gender, should be able to meet the enemies of freedom and our way of life on the battlefield. Women have been told we're too weak for nearly everything for centuries and been forbidden to engage in traditionally male activities, lest we fail miserably or surpass them. We need the chance to prove ourselves(though I hate the fact that we need to) and put male fear to rest. Next I'd like women to be required to register for the Selective Service. Equal rights should come with the same risks that males citizens face.
Here's a question: should we lower the requirements even further for women who want to be grunts? I want to make sure that she can pull my ass out of a burning humvee without a problem, and that includes all my gear being on (which adds 100+ pounds extra).
Not that this is specific to any sex, but I think the following video is pretty darn interesting to watch, because it shows hos vindictive people can be.
Now, the basic premise (according to her) is that she had three kids with him, and he refuses to pay child support. Whether there's an order in place or not, she never tells us. But she admits that she conspired with her friend who is HIV+ to sleep with him and infect him so she could collect his SSI checks!
Now, thirty states have laws in place that make it criminal to transmit HIV knowingly, without warning someone you are HIV+ In almost all cases, this is a misdemeanor. However, these two conspired, showing premeditation. But if it ever came out who they were, they'd get little to no jail time over this, despite committing what would be attempted murder (or murder in the first degree, if he ends up dying from this).
This reminds me of the survey in which a large portion (something like one out of every 4? I don't have the results in front of me) of troops threatened to leave the military of don't ask don't tell was repealed. Of course, it never happened.
You do realize that those troops probably did leave, right? No one's going to report on servicemembers leaving at EAS.
In general, "false reporting of a crime" is a very light sentence, much lighter in most circumstances then the time the crime itself would net someone. I believe there was a case in the 80s where a man was wrongly accused of murder by...I want to say a scorned ex-. He ended up doing 15+ for the murder, and then she admitted she lied. The problem is, such a crime has a statute of limitations, like almost every other crime.
That's why we have a civil system. Sure, a couple million won't net you what you lost in time--and rarely do you ever see most of it. But it's supposed to be a deterant, and not a very good one because of the inevitable press that comes along with it in such a case. "Oh, it's someone trying to keep women down! RAPE IS NOT A JOKE!" Well, you should tell that to the **** who reported a false rape!
And yet both railed against it. It's almost like issues of national security/defense are complex. Weird.
Washington accepted the need for a small standing military for national defense. He understood that a professionally-trained military would be a detriment to the European nations building up again along the borders of the United Stats (The British to the north in Canada, the Spanish to the south in Florida, and the French to the west).
Even looking at many of the quotes, the implication is that they viewed a large standing military as being a problem if the federal government tried to use them against the citizens (I believe Madison, Jefferson, and Adams all cited the fall of the Roman Republic with the removal of the ban on Roman troops in Rome itself). It seems that really, they considered the military a problem in that regard, not as a fighting force (as Admiral Adama put it, "There's a reason the military and the police are separate with different responsibilities. The police protect the people while the military fights the enemies of the state. When the military becomes the police, the enemies of the state inevitably become the people.")
You seem to be parsing that sentence wrongly. "Our liberties must of necessity be greatly hazarded, if not entirely lost, if their defence is left to any but a permanent standing army" = "only a standing army can defend our liberties".
You're interpreting it as if it were modern writing. He still wrote like a British ponce of the time. The rest of that letter delves into how little he thinks of standing militaries because men can't be expected to behave like soldiers for years on end.
You do realize that the earliest form of conscription made a standing army a real thing and was begun in 1778 by the Continental Congress. Washington even accepted this practice, and subsequent Presidents accepted it as well, even Jefferson.
I think it's been widely agreed across all spectrums except the incredibly loony left that "society" as a whole is terrible. So stop pushing this theory of yours, because it's wrong, and history has consistently showed this.
Except when people have implemented social policy intended to benefit people as a whole (like education and healthcare for all) this has greatly improved the standard of living and made people freer and happier. Observe, if you will, Sweden! Consider the increase in living standard as the worker's movement strengthened and the decrease in living standard as those institutions have been privatized under liberal government.
The Soviet Union.
China.
North Korea.
Vietnam.
Greece.
I mean, I could go on, but what's the point? All those societies adopted liberal "touchy-feely" guidelines and governments on the auspices of "making a utopian society", but then decides for whatever reason to ignore that promise. Maybe Sweden can be the exception, but it's highly doubtful. People have become pacified, and it's only a matter of time before someone takes control in your country and drowns it like the Soviet Union.
There should be a way to even this out. The way to do that is to give the man a way to shirk financial responsibility so long as he accepts that he is also giving up any claims to being the father.
No, the best way to do this is order society in such a way that no child must depend on the income of one or two specific individuals to have a secure upbringing.
I think it's been widely agreed across all spectrums except the incredibly loony left that "society" as a whole is terrible. So stop pushing this theory of yours, because it's wrong, and history has consistently showed this.
So MSNBC gets bashed for editing out one random d-bag with 0 input other than spouting off the second amendment that does not honestly say **** about whether or not "assault rifles" should be legal.
This world we live in.
What they edited out was the fact that the father had posed a question the audience, and the "heckler" responded after he acted like no one could argue against his position. The response was to the fact the father acted like it was an indefensible position.
To be fair, no counterpoint was offered. He asked why anyone would need military-style assault rifles and high-capacity ammo drums and the only response offered was "The second amendment shall not be infringed."
People who aren't morons realize that there's more to the debate than "no gun regulations ever because we have the second amendment." The second amendment calls for a well regulated militia, not an unregulated and well-armed general populace.
But why is the amendment worded the way it is? Let's look at the choice of the word militia. The founding fathers were opposed to any form of standing military. They viewed a standing military as a tool of tyrants, thus wanted America to call upon well regulated militias in times of crisis/war. Now that we have the world's largest standing military, the whole notion of militias gets thrown right out the window. So why do we cling to this notion that we are supposed to have guns? And not just have guns, but as many and of whatever type as we like? Many would argue that we need guns to defend against a tyrannical US government. But that's ridiculous. Not because the US government could never become tyrannical, but because the American military is the largest, most well funded and well trained military in human history. Some NRA members with semi-auto AR-15's aren't going to count for **** against that. And if you think the military will break away from the government is such circumstances then you are ignorant of human history and have no business engaging in discussions like these.
As I have pointed out before and have been ignored numerous times (which makes me wonder why I even bother with some of you on this board), the general consensus among the Founding Fathers was that a standing professional military was needed at all times; however, a large military was not required unless the United States were engaged in hostilities with another country.
And I love it when people say, "You aren't going to do a damn thing against the military" before they actually rub a few brain cells together and think a little bit. Kindly find the exit to this thread and stay out of it.
So MSNBC gets bashed for editing out one random d-bag with 0 input other than spouting off the second amendment that does not honestly say **** about whether or not "assault rifles" should be legal.
This world we live in.
What they edited out was the fact that the father had posed a question the audience, and the "heckler" responded after he acted like no one could argue against his position. The response was to the fact the father acted like it was an indefensible position.
And if those standards are not lowered so the remaining 90-95% of women can get into the grunt field, then you're going to have nothing but complaints. You'll have nothing but lawsuits over this. You'll have daily feminazi protests outside the main gates of Camp Lejeune, Camp Pendleton, and MCB Quantico.
The standards for women are lower for the PFT, which is what is required for promotions among other things. Women don't have to do pull-ups. That's fine. The don't have to do as many crunches. They don't have to be as fast on the 3-mile run as males.
Whether or not they are capable of meeting the same standards as men in that regard is not the issue. This is, quite literally, a matter of life and death. If a woman cannot carry a Marine with 100+ pounds of additional gear on out of a combat zone like we expect males to, she has no right to expect to be in that field. This is not a place where you put affirmative action, or "gender equality" in play. My life is on the line. Others' lives are on the line. Let women have rights over their reproductive organs and the life of the fetus. Don't roll the dice with mine.
Israel is also surrounded by enemies, and they don't hold to much of this politically-correct BS that pervades our culture. Those women know that if they are fighting, they are doing it for keeps. This isn't like Afghanistan where it's a simple mission of pacification, and if we **** up "Oh well, it's still thousands of miles away". Israel knows that if they ever **** up during a campaign, they don't have the luxury of distance between their enemies and themselves.
In such a case where there is little to no evidence, the police would take the statement and investigate the crime on the assumption it happened. No arrest would be made until there was sufficient evidence to convince a judge or a grand jury to issue a warrant.
Hi, I'd like you to address the question and not say "It's stupid". Also, I'd like you to actually understand the Geneva Convention and the role of translators in the military before spouting this off ever again. Thank you.
And I'm not surprised at how easy you must be to bait by a troll. I feel very confident in saying that if I wanted to, I could sit here all day and watch the river of tears stream forth. Nevertheless, I'll take your lack-of-knowledge and ignorance towards what EAS is, as well as the general attitude of the military towards such a thing. My point had been that these servicemembers probably did leave when their contract ended; no one is going to risk the benefits given after four years of honorable service over this unless their morality is that important to them. You don't have the option to just leave the military without repercussions whenever you want.
Actually, you quoted the incorrect letter. The letter you cited actually is about setting the foundation of the federal government, and talks about his fears that if that foundation is not properly laid, then all of it would have been for naught ("To form a new government requires infinite care and unbounded attention; for if the foundation is badly laid, the superstructure must be bad.").
The passage you quoted is actually from his letter to Congress 02 September 1776. In it, he actually says that the standing military is a necessity to safeguard the nation and the freedoms the Congress and the American people fought for. The entire passage actually reads:
"I am persuaded, and as fully convinced as I am of any one fact that has happened, that our liberties must of necessity be greatly hazarded, if not entirely lost, if their defence is left to any but a permanent standing army; I mean, one to exist during the war. Nor would the expense, incident to the support of such a body of troops, as would be competent to almost every exigency, far exceed that, which is daily incurred by calling in succor, and new enlistments, which, when effected, are not attended with any good consequences. Men, who have been free and subject to no control, cannot be reduced to order in an instant; and the privileges and exemptions they claim and will have influence the conduct of others; and the aid derived from them is nearly counterbalanced by the disorder, irregularity, and confusion they occasion."
In fact, 24 September 1776 saw him write a second letter, in which e addresses the concept of militia being the only source of defense for the nation:
"To place any dependence upon militia is assuredly resting upon a broken staff. Men just dragged from the tender scenes of domestic life, unaccustomed to the din of arms, totally unacquainted with every kind of military skill ... makes them timid and ready to fly from their own shadows."
Washington had respect for the militia as they had been instrumental in many fights. But those militia had also been hardened, in many cases, to previous wars (the French and Indian War, for example, was relatively recent, and Washington himself had fought in it). Washington did not believe that such militia could be counted upon in the future, and he expected that if we relied solely on that type of fighting force, we would be doomed.
Here's a question: should we lower the requirements even further for women who want to be grunts? I want to make sure that she can pull my ass out of a burning humvee without a problem, and that includes all my gear being on (which adds 100+ pounds extra).
WARNING: NOT SAFE FOR WORK
Woman admits on radio show she wanted her HIV+ friend to sleep with her 'baby daddy' to infect him so she could collect on his SSI checks
Now, the basic premise (according to her) is that she had three kids with him, and he refuses to pay child support. Whether there's an order in place or not, she never tells us. But she admits that she conspired with her friend who is HIV+ to sleep with him and infect him so she could collect his SSI checks!
Now, thirty states have laws in place that make it criminal to transmit HIV knowingly, without warning someone you are HIV+ In almost all cases, this is a misdemeanor. However, these two conspired, showing premeditation. But if it ever came out who they were, they'd get little to no jail time over this, despite committing what would be attempted murder (or murder in the first degree, if he ends up dying from this).
This is the kind of stupid **** you get. This.
You do realize that those troops probably did leave, right? No one's going to report on servicemembers leaving at EAS.
In general, "false reporting of a crime" is a very light sentence, much lighter in most circumstances then the time the crime itself would net someone. I believe there was a case in the 80s where a man was wrongly accused of murder by...I want to say a scorned ex-. He ended up doing 15+ for the murder, and then she admitted she lied. The problem is, such a crime has a statute of limitations, like almost every other crime.
That's why we have a civil system. Sure, a couple million won't net you what you lost in time--and rarely do you ever see most of it. But it's supposed to be a deterant, and not a very good one because of the inevitable press that comes along with it in such a case. "Oh, it's someone trying to keep women down! RAPE IS NOT A JOKE!" Well, you should tell that to the **** who reported a false rape!
Washington accepted the need for a small standing military for national defense. He understood that a professionally-trained military would be a detriment to the European nations building up again along the borders of the United Stats (The British to the north in Canada, the Spanish to the south in Florida, and the French to the west).
Even looking at many of the quotes, the implication is that they viewed a large standing military as being a problem if the federal government tried to use them against the citizens (I believe Madison, Jefferson, and Adams all cited the fall of the Roman Republic with the removal of the ban on Roman troops in Rome itself). It seems that really, they considered the military a problem in that regard, not as a fighting force (as Admiral Adama put it, "There's a reason the military and the police are separate with different responsibilities. The police protect the people while the military fights the enemies of the state. When the military becomes the police, the enemies of the state inevitably become the people.")
You do realize that the earliest form of conscription made a standing army a real thing and was begun in 1778 by the Continental Congress. Washington even accepted this practice, and subsequent Presidents accepted it as well, even Jefferson.
The Soviet Union.
China.
North Korea.
Vietnam.
Greece.
I mean, I could go on, but what's the point? All those societies adopted liberal "touchy-feely" guidelines and governments on the auspices of "making a utopian society", but then decides for whatever reason to ignore that promise. Maybe Sweden can be the exception, but it's highly doubtful. People have become pacified, and it's only a matter of time before someone takes control in your country and drowns it like the Soviet Union.
I think it's been widely agreed across all spectrums except the incredibly loony left that "society" as a whole is terrible. So stop pushing this theory of yours, because it's wrong, and history has consistently showed this.
As I have pointed out before and have been ignored numerous times (which makes me wonder why I even bother with some of you on this board), the general consensus among the Founding Fathers was that a standing professional military was needed at all times; however, a large military was not required unless the United States were engaged in hostilities with another country.
And I love it when people say, "You aren't going to do a damn thing against the military" before they actually rub a few brain cells together and think a little bit. Kindly find the exit to this thread and stay out of it.
What they edited out was the fact that the father had posed a question the audience, and the "heckler" responded after he acted like no one could argue against his position. The response was to the fact the father acted like it was an indefensible position.