AmeriCAN-DO Attitude

Are you an AmeriCAN or an AmeriCAN'T?

Time to frog march Obama and Biden out of the White House?

UPDATE 01/24/12: Here is the main reason why NO ONE — neither conservative nor liberal, neither Republican nor Democrat, neither Christian nor Muslim — should have ANY problem with Marines pissing on dead Taliban terrorists: Images: Taliban Proudly Murder 15 Pakistanis

==========

According to the meme of the Left, it is time to ‘frog march’ Obama and Biden to GTMO over this. Afterall, they sanctioned this ‘desecration of corpses’ with their policies. Isn’t that what the Left said about Abu Graib?

Also according to the Left, when Muslims cut off heads of journalists and contractors (Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg) and captured hostages; burn the corpses of US contractors, parade them through town and hang them from bridges (Fallujah); commit ‘honor killings’; stone their women; throw acid in the faces of their girls… none of this is representative of Muslims as a whole. And the acts themselves are not outrageous; what is outrageous is that people are smearing all Muslims, because of the acts of a few. So, of course, I’m sure that the Left is now saying that the act of these Marines is not outrageous, what is outrageous is that people are smearing the US Marine Corps, because of the acts of a few. Right?

Nope, of course not. Liberals are throwing their usual hissy fits and throwing their usual vitriolic hate and bile towards the only government institution they hate: the US military. Especially when this involves the part of the US military they hate the most: the US Marines.

And, of course, who can forget the most famous quote from the leader of the liberal movement regarding the murder and desecration of US contractors in Fallujah:

“I feel nothing over the death of mercenaries. They aren’t in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them.” – Markos Moulitsas (Daily Kos)

Got that? When America’s enemies, evil terrorists, murder and desecrate the bodies of Americans, liberals side with our enemies. When Americans piss on the bodies our of enemies, evil terrorists, liberals once again side with our enemies.

Well… piss on liberals. (pun intended)

We’re not talking about fellow citizens of a foreign country who are called to arms by their government to fight in a war. We’re talking about despicable, vile terrorists hell bent on murder who are doing the bidding of an evil cult of death masquerading as a ‘religion’. Of course, I guess we shouldn’t expect liberals to know the difference, considering they worship mass murderers like Che Guevera, Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro and consider people like George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh to be evil.

“Pee on a Crucifix, you’re an ‘artist.’
Pee on The American Flag, you’re a ‘Liberal Free Thinker.’
Pee on a Police Car, you’re an ‘Occupy Wall Street Protestor Hero.’
Pee on the dead Taliban Piece Of **** that just tried to kill you and your fellow Marines, you’re a ‘Villian.’”

And that pretty much sums up the Left. Interesting priorities they have…

I agree with Debow at Blackfive: The Nature of Warriors

Wars and battle are ugly things. The very insides of the dark side of humanity and the razor thin margins of how close we come to being animals when we fight our enemies rises to the very top for all to see. It is not pretty and it is not polite. When you fight an enemy that prefers death to surrender and straps bombs to little children and records it for posterity to blast out all over the world wide web, you need to start fighting a little fire with fire. Spending every day with death tugging at your elbow while, in some cases, watching your men die, some of them good friends. Seeing this happen right in front of you every day can lead to a thirst for revenge and pay back those life debts that few will ever know.

I know that our grandfathers in B-17 crews over Germany, in the forests of the Ruhr Valley and at Tarawa, Bougainville, Guadalcanal, and Iwo Jima felt that thirst for revenge. Our fathers certainly felt it in places like Khe Sanh, Hue City, and the Ia Drang Valley when they were walking point, carrying a machine gun or patrolling the rivers. Who among them didn’t add that extra burst of machine gun fire even though they saw the Messerschmitt they had just shot down only smoking a little as it limped away or put another 40mm round into a bunker, you know, just to make sure. There were many who did not succumb to the temptation to exact revenge, but there were probably some who did…

And now there is talk that this could put a crimp in the peaceful style of the “grab the ankles and run away” exit strategy that the OinC has in mind for Afghanistan; certainly timed to go along with his class warfare “eat the rich” super-dee-duper successful campaign strategy. Al-Reuters has their panties firmly bunched because they think this might stir anti-American sentiment after a decade of war. Really? This is what is gonna lose the war for us? The fact that we are attempting to satisfy these subhuman POS’s from the 7th Century who behead those who will not comply tells me just how far we have fallen down the rabbit hole.

The nature of warriors is something that only warriors will ever know. Those that have never experienced this will never know why these men felt the need to do what they did. But if our military is going to be effective in the long run, our enemies must fear us. They must believe that we are capable of unspeakable evil and every now and then, we have to pull back the curtain a little and let them see a smidgen of what we are holding the lid on while we bomb them further into the stone age. That fear of what those warriors are capable of will save lives.

Was it wrong for these Marines to do this? Sure. Was there a breakdown in leadership? No Doubt. Do I understand with 100 percent certainty why they did it? Absolutely.

As well as with Congressman Allen West:

Congressman Allen West view:

“I have sat back and assessed the incident with the video of our Marines urinating on Taliban corpses. I do not recall any self-righteous indignation when our Delta snipers Shugart and Gordon had their bodies dragged through Mogadishu. Neither do I recall media outrage and condemnation of our Blackwater security contractors being killed, their bodies burned, and hung from a bridge in Fallujah.

“All these over-emotional pundits and armchair quarterbacks need to chill. Does anyone remember the two Soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division who were beheaded and gutted in Iraq?

“The Marines were wrong. Give them a maximum punishment under field grade level Article 15 (non-judicial punishment), place a General Officer level letter of reprimand in their personnel file, and have them in full dress uniform stand before their Battalion, each personally apologize to God, Country, and Corps videotaped and conclude by singing the full US Marine Corps Hymn without a teleprompter.

“As for everyone else, unless you have been shot at by the Taliban, shut your mouth, war is hell.”

And, amazingly enough, Bill Maher and I are also in agreement. Granted, liberals are kind of like broken clocks, so…

Also see: Allen West on the Marines Incident: ‘Shut Your Mouth, War Is Hell’

Here we have 19/20-somethings fighting and seeing their buddies killed, or seeing videos of this enemy beheading Americans [reporters, contractors, Soldiers and Marines]. They urinated on the Taliban dead. This is regrettable. After a tough battle even a leader would be tempted to do such a thing. Big deal! Hell, Patton urinated into the Rhine River and it was captured on film! What is so honorable about this bestial enemy that brutalizes his own family with atrocity, and mutilates his women relatives? So, peeing on a corpse is an atrocity now? Horse-puckey! Give them a Battalion Level punishment. Do not ruin the rest of their lives!

As to Secretaries [who never served, never were warriors]: Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, and the rest, I say talk is cheap. What hypocrites you are; you crooked politicians! You wear white-washed robes but you are rotten underneath. You talk about honor but you have no pedigree in the subject, and no moral righteousness for this trumped-up indignation. Go ahead, apologize to the Taliban, you idiots. Shame on you for continually persecuting and demoralizing your own warriors. Go ahead, finish off the world’s best enforcers and defenders of peace … you jerks. This is the real crime!

Here: See what war is really all about.

King David, using Goliath’s sword, cut off the head of Goliath after he had killed him, and God blessed King David and the Israelites. I say God Bless the US Armed Forces and the US Marines for taking the fight to the sworn Taliban enemies of civilization and the United States, and killing them!

Photobucket

[H/T Vinnie at The Jawa Report]

Also see: Taliban Urinegate and Vampire Movies

So now we have a videotape of some marines breaking the rules and taping it. It’s curious why they did that, and now it’s gotten out. Snerdley, which do you think is more offensive, a greater transgression: Abu Ghraib photos or the urination on corpses of the Taliban. Abu Ghraib far worse. Abu Ghraib far worse than urinating on Taliban corpses. I know we don’t know when this happened. The details are sketchy. So as a discussion matter, we’ll take it as it is. But get this Reuters story: “Taliban Says Marine Tape Will not Hurt Afghanistan Talks.” Now, what does that tell you? What does that tell you?

All of a sudden you have something that, if they wanted to, the left could exploit as another Abu Ghraib. That goes without saying, Abu Ghraib blamed on Bush, why isn’t this blamed on Obama? Nothing can go wrong. This will be blamed on the individuals, not Obama. When a president is Republican, everything that the government does is blamed on him. But the more important question here, the Taliban, those, according to the story, was their people who were dead who were the urinatees. And the Taliban says that that tape is not gonna hurt anything, we’re not bothered by that. I’m simply asking, what does that tell you? (interruption) No. It doesn’t tell us that they’re tired of being hit by drones.

It tells us that they’re winning and they’re close and if they start raising hell about this, it’s gonna delay the ultimate. Karzai is out there saying one thing or another. A senior member of the Afghan government’s High Peace Council said, “Such action will leave a very, very bad impact on peace efforts.” But the Taliban says, ah, not gonna hurt anything here. Taliban must think they’re close to winning. Taliban must think they’re pretty close to taking over Afghanistan. There are peace talks going on, and the Taliban must think that we’re pretty close to surrendering it to ‘em and getting out, and they don’t want this to come along and stop that process and delay. That’s how I interpret it. This would be my wild guess.

Obviously Urinegate will not interrupt the process of turning the country over to the Taliban. If they wanted to they could go after Obama. They could be out there saying that Panetta should resign. Where is CODEPINK? Where are all these anti-war groups? Where are these people who hate the military compared to way they were around at Abu Ghraib? You remember the fake stories about flushing a Koran down the toilet from Michael Isikoff. They wanted to frog march Bush and Cheney into jail over Abu Ghraib. Abu Ghraib was on the front page of the New York Times above the fold, get this, for 32 straight days. Urinegate, ah, what’s the big deal? No big deal. We can’t even pinpoint when it happened. We’ll deal with it internally. Panetta gets away with talking about how outraged he is. He won’t put up with it. Okay, fine, that’s all we need to hear, let’s move on, nothing to see here.

More:

Correcting the Progressive Spin on My Defense of the Marines

When Dissent Isn’t Patriotic: How Politico Is Playing Media Matters’ Game to Censor Conservatives

Media Matters Tries To Stir Controversy Over Loesch, Limbaugh – Fails

Also see: Rick Perry Defends Urinating Marines: They’re Kids Who Made a Mistake, Not Criminals (Video)

Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) on Sunday defended the four Marines who were depicted in a viral video last week urinating on the corpses of three Taliban insurgents, arguing “what’s really disturbing to me is just, kind of, the over-the-top rhetoric from this administration and their disdain for the military.”

“Obviously, 18, 19-year-old kids make stupid mistakes all too often, and that’s what’s occurred here,” the Republican presidential candidate told Candy Crowley on CNN’s ‘State of the Union.’ “But, you know, when you’re in war, and history kind of backs up — there’s a picture of General Patton doing basically the same thing in the Rhine River. And although there’s not a picture, Churchill did the same thing on the Siegfried line.”

Perry/West 2012

And more:

Today’s American Hero Spotlight Goes to Dana Loesch: “I’d Drop Trou and Do it Too”

Uh-oh… if we don’t watch out, the Taliban won’t like us anymore!

“Now we have a bunch of progressives that are talking smack about our military because there were marines caught urinating on corpses, Taliban corpses,” Loesch said during her radio program on FM News Talk 97.1. “Can someone explain to me if there’s supposed to be a scandal that someone pees on the corpse of a Taliban fighter? Someone who, as part of an organization, murdered over 3,000 Americans? I’d drop trou and do it too. That’s me though. I want a million cool points for these guys. Is that harsh to say? Come on people, this is a war. What do people think this is?”

So now, our moral, ethical, and intellectual betters on the left want her fired. For saying she’d pee on a terrorist. They’re really, really angry about that. They’ve been shrieking at her on Twitter for days. I don’t know if I would’ve worded it exactly like she did, and personally I’d prefer if our guys would stick to just killing the bad guys instead of making latrines out of them. They should be subject to whatever disciplinary action is coming their way, and you can bet they will be. But I have no problem with Loesch’s sentiment. I mean, it’s the Taliban. If she’d said she wouldn’t mind peeing on Hitler’s carcass, would the left be freaking out at her like they’ve been doing?

You might be a liberal if…

You think Bill Maher was a hero after 9/11 for saying terrorists are brave, and Dana Loesch is a villain for insulting them. (He agrees with her on this one, BTW.)
You insist you don’t sympathize with terrorists, but you fly into a rage when somebody disrespects them.
Your reply to criticism of Obama is “Oh yeah, well, who killed Bin Laden?”, but you become furious when Bin Laden’s pals are humiliated.

Let this be a lesson to everyone: If you want to pee on a dead terrorist, first wrap him in an American flag. Then Keith Olbermann, Eric Boehlert, and other leading lights of liberalism will cheer you on.

January 15, 2012 , 1:33AM Posted by | Liberalism, Military, Operation Enduring Freedom, Taliban, Terrorism, US Marines | , , , | Comments Off

What an Absolute Joke Our Society has Become

I left the following comment in response to this discussion at This Ain’t Hell: Legislation to allow women in combat specialties

Just another case of the ‘progressive’ mindset vs the conservative mindset. Conservatives are about equality of opportunity and focusing on excellence of results. ‘Progressives’ are about equality of results and excellence of ‘diversity’. Even then, conservatives and ‘progressives’ define results differently. While conservatives’ idea of results RE: the military is based on specific tasks military members must complete successfully, the idea of results for ‘progressives’ RE: the military is based on ‘diversity’.

The conservative, logical mindset will look at the tasks to be completed and then set standards to get the people best suited to complete those tasks. Anyone will have the opportunity to prove they can achieve the standards. But only those who achieve the standards will be chosen. If the pool of people chosen are all white men, all black/hispanic/asian men, all white women, all black/hispanic/asian women, etc, matters not to the conservative, logical mindset. What matters is that everyone chosen meets the standards and will complete the tasks successfully.

The ‘progressive’, emotional mindset will ignore the tasks to be completed and look only at what pool of people they want chosen. If they see that the standards set to successfully complete the tasks are preventing their ‘diverse’ pool of chosen people, they will change the standards to help their ‘diversity’ agenda. If this change in standards negatively affects the successful completion of the tasks, it matters not to the ‘progressive’, emotional mindset. What matters is that those attempting to complete the tasks are properly ‘diverse’.

Anyone or any company or organization who/which focuses on ‘diversity’ instead of excellence should be avoided. Period.

But, how about we take the emotional ‘diversity’ illogic of feminists and ‘progressives’ to its logical end. Someone mentioned that this crap started when these riTARDs started ignoring results-based success and started looking at ‘diversity’-based ‘success’. For example, they looked at the NFL and started bitching that there were not enough Black QBs or Black coaches, etc. So, they started the ‘Rooney Rule’ to force teams to interview Black coaches.

Well, as far as I can tell, the demographics of NFL players skews to Black athletes. And I believe those demographics do not match up with the demographics of the US population at all. Thus, we need a quota system in the NFL. No NFL team will be allowed to have its roster any different than the demographics of the US population overall. If the percentage of Blacks in the overall population is 20%, then no more than 20% of any roster shall be made up of Blacks. We can extend this ‘diversity’ agenda to the NBA, MLB and NHL as well. All major sports will be forced to adhere to this policy. This will also mean that more Mexicans and Asians will need to be on each major sports league’s teams. Afterall, we cannot have any ethnic background improperly represented.

Also, this will need to extend to colleges as well. Thus, only 20% of atheletic scholarships shall be given to Blacks in any sport. And more athletic scholarships given to Mexicans and Asians, etc.  (Think this is wrong or unfair?  Well, it is absolutely NO different than changing/lowering academic standards to give more scholarships to minorities who would otherwise not get them.  So if we need to make academic scholarships more ‘fair’ and ‘diverse’, it follows that we need to do the same with athletic scholarships, right?)

But wait, I’m not done. As we’re learning from the feminists and the LGBTs, women are absolutely, positively NO different than men. A woman can do anything a man can do. She can play sports, she can be a father to a child and she can do anything a male member of the military can do. Now, since we don’t set up our military to be “The US Military” and “The Female US Military” (yes, I know, we actually DO set it up that way, since no female military member in any branch of the military actually has to achieve the same standards as their male counterparts, by default creating ‘female Marines’, ‘female soldiers’, etc), then there is absolutely no reason for the existence of the WNBA, the LPGA and female tennis leagues. Also, women’s softball shall be eliminated. Women can throw overhand just as well as men, so there is no reason to have a separate league for them where they throw underhand.

Thus, just as the US Military is being forced (and has been forced throughout history) — in the name of ‘diversity’ and equality — to open its organization to women, regardless of how that will affect the effectiveness of the organization, all other organizations shall be forced to do the same.

NFL — What’s that you say? A 100-lb female DE can’t compete with a 350lb male offensive lineman, thus no high school or college or NFL team will give her a shot? No problem! We’ll just change the rules of football so that women can compete better.

MLB — What’s that you say? Women can’t throw overhand as far as men can, which is why women’s softball mounds are set up closer to the batter and they are allowed to throw underhand? No problem! We’ll just change the rules of baseball so that women can compete better.

NBA — What’s that you say? A 5’5″ female guard can’t get her jump shot off over a 6’5″ male guard? No problem! We’ll just change the rules of basketball so that women can compete better.

PGA — What’s that you say? There are not enough females who are as good at golf as men, so there wouldn’t be an even number of men and women competing each week in the tournaments? No problem! We’ll just create a quota rule where each tournament has to be 50-50 men and women.

NHL — What’s that you say? A 100-lb female getting hit into the boards by a 250-lb male would get herself mauled? No problem! We’ll just change the rules of hockey so that women can compete better.

Think about that for a minute. Anyone proposing that we make those changes for our major sports would be ridiculed as the idiotic, dumbass riTARD that s/he is. YET, this is exactly what is being proposed for our US military, an organization which conducts MUCH MORE SERIOUS tasks than simply throwing balls around or hitting balls with sticks.

When it comes to a game, no one makes the absolutely majorly f-ing idiotic suggestion that women be treated the same as men. But when it comes to our national defense, all of a sudden, it’s somehow less riTARDed an idea?

WTF is wrong with people. Seriously, what the bloody f’ing f’ck is wrong with people.

Anyone suggesting that women be allowed in the military with lesser standards, let alone in combat MOS with lesser standards, should be treated the same way as we would anyone suggesting that women be allowed in the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL with lesser standards. Yet, we’re actually treating this as a serious, intellectual idea. Un-freaking-real.

What an absolute joke our society has become.

Some great points made in the comments:

Frankly Opinionated Says:
May 21st, 2011 at 8:25 am

Let’s take this from the basics:

Men in the military are not permitted to grow their hair long. I believe this is for good reason. I was told that it was because of the hygiene, and the fact that hair can get in the way or get caught in weaponry. I agree.

Women are not made to cut theirs “high and tight”, but in combat MOS’, wouldn’t those same factors apply.

Not too long ago, a lady commented here, about the once a month hygiene difficulties of a women, and on how much more difficult it is for them at that time. Great point.

Men must meet a certain standard in Physical ability. Because it is what is needed to perform the job. If women in the same MOS’ are held to a lesser standard, how could we expect them to perform the same job, (handling, mounting/dismounting a “Ma Duece” perhaps), as timely and well as a man?

And back to my time in service, (right after we replaced the musket), we had women in the Army, in the Air Force, in the Navy, and in the Marines. They were WAC’s, WAF’s, Wave’s, n BAM’s. They performed a necessary job, did it well, made rank, stayed in til retirement.

Women don’t have a “right” to be in a MAN’s slot, anymore than a Man has a “right” to a promotion that he did not earn.

Ben Says:
May 21st, 2011 at 9:14 am

Loretta Sanchez…

“The Vietnamese are trying to take our seat!”

She is such a piece of shit.

Anyway, here’s the point: “Sanchez’s amendment would implement a recommendation made earlier this year by the Military Leadership Diversity Committee, a group of current and retired officers, noncommissioned officers and civilians, which determined that combat exclusion laws hurt advancement opportunities for women.”

So the point here is that the rules are standing in the way of their advancement opportunities. My initial reaction is that we already have affirmative action that gives women and minorities special treatment in advancement at the expense of white guys like me. Women can shoot up through the ranks without putting in half the effort as men. It’s disgusting. Talk about incompotent people being placed in positions of power.

But that’s not even the most important thing to consider. Combat effectiveness should ALWAYS be the focus. What’s best for our ass-kicking power is more important than what’s best for some whiney woman’s career.

By the way, affirmative action hasn’t been very beneficial to my career either. Not that Sanchez cares. She wants “equality” not equality.

Doc Bailey Says:
May 21st, 2011 at 10:00 am

Medics are technically a non-combat MOS, but we do NOT let them anywhere NEAR the line. Officially. Sometimes they sneak in as “attachments” but brother let me tell you, dealing with women in the chain of command adds a whole new dynamic. Whatever drama you had before suddenly becomes a soap opera, and a lot of female officers are passive aggressive in the extreme. I’ve seen female NCOs go nuts over minor things and Female officers are if anything worse, because the Army almost TELLS them to be passive aggressive. I understand shit details tend to go to those you don’t like, but still. . . it gets ridiculous if you don’t have a 1SG willing to tell them off.

Its not PC, but I’m going to say this as honestly as I can. Units with women in them are 10 times harder to deal with than all male ones.

But that doesn’t even touch on the physical reasons to include weight carrying capacity (their hips are NOT designed to carry loads the same way as men) Stamina and speed, (just why IS the 2 mile run standards so much lower?) the idea that a mostly male unit would “protect” the females, and lets not forget my favorite: women are psychologically predisposed to “nurture”, the battlefield is a bit of a jump in the opposite direction, so no one really knows if more extreme cases of PTSD might result.

This is just another Dem political stunt, like DADT repeal and women on Subs. It makes no sense to the people tasked with implementing the policy (timing and even in most cases the NEED for such) and we’re just supposed to salute, say Hoah and carry on like the GOOD little mindless robots we are.

Ben Says:
May 21st, 2011 at 10:59 am

Bottom line: Men and women are different. They are not interchangeable parts. Treating different things differently is not discrimination.

DaveO Says:
May 21st, 2011 at 11:01 am

I agree that this is a stunt. It worked exceptionally well with Repealing DADT, with so-called gay conservative groups imploding with their support of the repeal.

Women in combat MOS is not about the individual woman, or the chosen ones who will be given rank and position. This is about Democrats having lost the Feminist Mojo to conservatives such as Governor Palin and Rep. Bachmann. The meme goes: if woman can do anything, then woman can do anything.

Being an artillerist, I’ve served with women assigned to brigade-level HQ and higher; and in our support battalions. In a peacetime Army, they were professional. In wartime and on operational deployments to Bosnia? Most were professional.

This measure is also an insult to women who serve, and have served. They made the rank by going to the schools, walking the trail, taking good assignments and bad. Now? Now soldiers won’t know if their female leader is competent, or a quota requirement.

Before I’m willing to consider women in combat MOS, IMO DOD needs to get to the bottom, if you’ll pardon the pun, of all of these sexual assaults going on. There’ve been so many reports of rape, and countering accusations of accusing joe of rape in order for the female to avoid UCMJ, that no one knows what is true. But, the VA is reporting more women veterans as survivors (to one degree or another) of sexual assault.

There’s been no study of how to best integrate women into combat MOS – there’s been the political position with a veneer of statistics, but no serious, scientifically-based study.

Real-world, no-kidding issues are not, and will not be addressed. To do so may reveal truth. This amendment is not about truth, and it is not about women. It is about reclaiming the mantle of Feminist from conservatives.

fm2176 Says:
May 21st, 2011 at 12:52 pm

This infantryman is steadfastly against opening combat MOS’ to women. I have seen a very few women who might make average grunts on the line, and none who would be extremely impressive. The only female that made it past Zero day in my Air Assault class had a very impressive time on the road march, but that doesn’t mean she’d be able to keep up with us carrying a standard light infantry load. Let’s go through my limited military experience and interactions with females:

101st: About 45 days without a real shower or bath after entering Iraq. We had an Air Force unit sharing our tent complex in Kuwait that had a few females; we were all distracted by them and our PL one night found a porta-john occupied by one of them and a man one night. Not even two weeks into the deployment and they were already working hard. First four or five months we had no cots, power, or running water. After over a month of slit trenches and baby wipes we built a shower and outhouse and burned shit until around September 2003. Just before a parade through Clarksville when we got home a female Sergeant was recognized by one of the Afghanistan vets as part of a group whoring themselves out back in 2002. Go to Air Assault a 10 or so days after getting back home and watch 30 or so females wash out of the obstacle course.

TOG: A bit more interaction with females. MP company commander relieved (and Tomb Badge revoked) for having sex with enlisted Soldiers after pictures spread around. very few females on the field during ceremonies (of course, but even 289th MP Company had few when they were on the field). Went to PLDC, most of the females were at least proficient but one sandbagged the entire course. The instructors threatened to kick a few of the louder 11Bs out for continually pointing out the malingering nature of the female. I guess it’s better to send three or four good NCOs home to protect one POS.

Recruiting: Yay! A co-ed assignment. Work with two females directly, both are good at what they do and strive to participate in PT. Other females in the company? Not so much. PT days find them sitting down watching us. Despite the females I work with being squared away they still have their nuances–one time getting into an argument and refusing to talk or even work together for a few days.

#3 Ben,
I’ve seen that at work myself. Call me racist, misogynistic or whatever, but it seems that minorities (including women) are often promoted over white males in the Army (especially on the enlisted side). I’ve bitched about it before but I still find it odd that a non-deployable infantry unit could be so top-heavy in minority senior NCOs. My company had at most four blacks E-2 through E-6 (out of some 128 or so). Yet we had two E-7s, a 1SG and both CSMs. Our NCOPD one day had the author of “100 Sergeants Major of Color” as the guest speaker. I wonder how he felt about his profile of Staff Sergeant Stoney Crump (feels good to outrank that guy). On the flip side my unit in the 101st had very few minorities at all levels.

AW1 Tim Says:
May 21st, 2011 at 3:24 pm

For those want women in combat jobs, ask yourself this: Why aren’t women playing in the NFL? It has NOTHING to do with intelligence, marksmanship or communication skills. It has everything to do with physical requirements, and brute-force ability.

Hormones also play a VERY big part of that. I am so tired of all this craptacular social-engineering experiments being conducted by assmaggots who have never been involved in the military.

The crap will get people killed, and when it happens, those responsible for this legislation ought to be charged with murder and put to death. Publicly.

Matt Says:
May 21st, 2011 at 8:02 pm

I demand that our legislative body and executive branch prepare legislation that will effectively boycott the Olympic Games, both summer and winter, until the gender-specific events are eliminated. Participants should not be held back from achieving greatness by some arbitrary rule like gender-classification.

On the “study” that was perpetrated by this gender group, they mention that women are underrepresented in the senior ranks. Well, give me the number of women who stay in to serve in the senior ranks? Do women stay in the military as long as men? And this study concludes that women are hurt because they are not allowed to serve in Combat units, yet Service Support and Support units outnumber Combat units, 8-10 to 1. The tooth to tail ration favors the advancement of women. And plenty of them are in “combat” for women to receive the same “experience” as men. The majority of General/Flag Officer billets aren’t even “combat” related. There is no reason why a woman can’t be promoted to take over US Cyber Command or TRANSCOM.

jonp Says:
May 21st, 2011 at 8:38 pm

I had 6 women come into my airborne unit and within 6 months 4 were pregnant. Can’t see how this enhanced the operational readiness of my unit in the slightest

streetsweeper Says:
May 22nd, 2011 at 2:14 am

If you guys think having a woman that’s less than lack luster in infantry, armor or artillery try having several in an MP unit. Neither one carried their weight, our squad always had to mount their 60’s & load them in the gun trucks. All they had to do was woman(man)the 60’s and they bitched about that…the rest of us did ingress & egress.

Twas a damn good thing when Uncle Sugar Army gave us 6 of the V-100’s….they could hide inside them and not be a pain in our butts. Neither could shoot a .30, .38, 12gauge or M-16 worth a shit….Yet, they consistently passed weapons qual’s….go f’ng figure.

Doc Bailey Says:
May 22nd, 2011 at 3:31 am

I would like to point out that MOST women I talk to do not want to be ANYWHERE NEAR combat. Being on the FOB can be scary enough, and rolling up and down Predators or God Forbid Irish, sometimes felt like a fools errand, sure to get you wounded or killed. By my reckoning there are no “million dollar” wounds anymore, you get hit you’re probably losing something.

So I’ve got to ask a serious question here, and I’m asking mostly the women mind you; When did it become wrong for a man to want to protect a woman? Call me a chauvinist, but I’d really rather not have to treat women that get torn to pieces. I don’t want to treat guys that get torn up like that, but women getting hurt like that somehow seems. . . wrong. Is that really a wrong opinion to have?

No, it is not a wrong opinion at all.

And I will even take that one further. Forget the desire of men to protect women. Let’s just talk about simple science. Women are special in that they are the only ones who can give birth to our next generation. Losing 100 men in war is nothing compared to losing 100 women in war. That loss of 100 women means there are 100 less available to continue the next generation.

A society should treat its women special, because they are special. But our society has already proven that it does not consider life sacred and special by its acceptance and promotion of the mass murder of babies through the evil of abortion. So it should come as no surprise that no one even thinks to believe women should be kept out of the military — or at least kept out of deployment and combat — due to them being sacred life givers.

(Of course, considering it seems that half our female population now believes in the mass murder of babies through abortion as some sort of “right”, I guess we can stop considering women as special life givers, as they now seem quite happy with taking life.)

May 22, 2011 , 3:51AM Posted by | Democrats, Feminism, Liberalism, Military, Political Correctness | Comments Off

What Does ‘Serving Openly as a Homosexual’ Mean?

Good questions related to the impending repeal of DADT (“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, the Congressional law signed by former President Clinton banning homosexuals from serving openly in the US military) raised in the comments here: Showdown Day In The Senate For DADT And DREAM Act. — UPDATE: DREAM Act Cloture Vote Underway – Cloture FAILS 55-41. — UPDATE 2X: Repeal DADT Vote Underway — DADT Cloture Passes 63-33

438 Saw this on the Daily Caller:

What does “serving openly as a homosexual” mean?

Will the personal opinion on homosexuality of a service member become an impediment to promotion or assignment to key billets? Are there any assignments to which homosexuals must be or may not be assigned?

Will the Senate and the House Armed Services committees demand sexuality statistics to make certain that homosexuals are being promoted at the same rate as non-homosexuals? Will homosexuals be promoted at a faster rate to “compensate” for previous years of discrimination?

What benefits will same-sex “partners” receive? How long must one have a relationship to qualify as a partner? Will partners of homosexuals be assigned to on-base housing? Do former partners of active duty homosexuals retain dependent benefits (like a divorced spouse) when divorce is not a legal option?

Will homosexual service members be permitted to date each other? Live with each other as partners in bachelor officer quarters (BOQ) or bachelor enlisted quarters (BEQ)? How does this affect fraternization regulations?

Will homosexuals be deployed to countries where homosexuality is a crime? If not, who picks up the slack?

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 18, 2010 03:02 PM

December 18, 2010 , 3:58PM Posted by | Democrats, Don't Ask Don't Tell, Homosexual Movement, Liberalism | Comments Off

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell — What is Most Important? The Individual or the Mission?

Absolutely great discussion going on in the comments of this post at Blackfive: Against DADT Repeal

This great comment by Cassandra addresses my stand on the issue better than I ever could (and better than I tried to do in the comments there, as evidenced by the jackass tool calling me a disingenuous liar):

Cassandra said…

Gryph’s comment, in an odd way, sort of encapsulates the gap between where Grim and I (and others) stand and where Jimbo and Gryph stand on this issue.

To Gryph and Jimbo, the most important consideration seems to be the individual “right to serve”. Jimbo, at least, admits that repealing DADT may have some negative consequences just as allowing women to serve absolutely had some very negative consequences. He dismisses those, rightly or wrongly, by saying in effect, “If you allow women to serve and that caused problems, by what rationale do you prohibit gays from serving openly?”

I happen to think that’s an excellent argument. If you think the support of some individual right to serve is the most important consideration (and here I would note this mysterious “right” isn’t shared by people like my youngest son who played halfback in soccer for years and was in top physical shape, but whose VERY mild asthma disqualified him from serving in the armed forces) then I think you must come down on the side of repeal.

Again, there are many, many broad categories of people who AREN’T allowed to serve, though many of them would cause no more trouble or inconvenience that this change will bring. So… do we do away with all disqualifiers? What about people who are mildly overweight but physically fit? I know a lot of folks like that. What about people who are just too old, but can run marathons? They’re being discriminated against as a class of people too.

If you truly believe that the individual “right to serve” (a right, by the way, found nowhere in our law or Constitution), then all disqualifiers short of disability so severe that it presents an absolute bar to service must be done away with. Otherwise you are privileging gays over other equally capable folks who would, at the individual level add require little marginal effort to include.

************

If, on the other hand, you believe that efficiency and mission effectiveness are the most important considerations, you should probably oppose repeal.

The fact of the matter is: WE DO NOT ROOM MEN AND WOMEN TOGETHER. THEY DO NOT SHARE BATHROOMS, NOR DO THEY SHARE SHOWERS.

We do not keep men and women separate because they are more horny than deranged minks. The vast majority of men and women would probably be able to adjust to sharing rooms, bathrooms, bunks. As I commented on the other post however, the vast majority of human beings don’t rape, murder, or steal. We have laws against rape, murder and theft because of a minority who, for whatever reason, don’t control themselves.

Personally, I have no moral objections whatsoever against homosexuality. We have a family friend who is retired military and gay. I have no idea whether he knows we know he’s gay because we are not in the habit of discussing our sex lives with those in our social circle. We did not know this man when he was still serving, but if his personal habits and life are any indication, he was a fine officer. He is extremely intelligent, attentive to detail, physically fit, and possessed of a fine character.

I come down where I do on this issue because almost uniquely among the professions, the military requires the submersion of individual identity. It requires even heteros to give up many rights (such as conjugal rights) for long periods of time. If you can’t control your sexuality (and the presence of gays in the military proves that the vast majority of gays CAN do so just as the vast majority of heteros do), that’s a problem.

Again, the problem with admitting women wasn’t the majority who control their sexuality, but the minority who don’t. I believe the same will be true if DADT is repealed – the vast majority of gays will go on behaving with integrity and decorum and some minority will not.

The difference is, unlike the minority of heteros (male and female) who can’t control their themselves, there is no way to separate gay servicemembers of the same sex. So we will end up doing something we have not done before – bunking people who are naturally sexually attracted to each other together. Congress will have to repeal the part of the UCMJ that deals with fornication (sex outside marriage) because gays can’t marry in a lot of states. Single heteros can marry if they want to have sex w/out violating the UCMJ. What do we tell single gays? To give up on sex?

That’s nuts. So that’s one reg down.

Believe it or not, the Army doesn’t discharge HIV positive individuals anymore. So we have decided that in addition to all the other dangers of war, we are adding a new danger – the danger of being infected by blood, which we all know is a fact of life in battle. Another stupid regulation – my son can’t serve b/c he has asthma but someone with a communicable disease that raises the cost of health care and can be fatal can serve? Why is that?

I am female. Some females could serve in the combat arms. When I was 23 I could easily pass the MALE Marine pft, but by law I could never serve in combat. Why discriminate against me simple on the basis of my sex?

Answer: because my individual “right” to serve wasn’t the most important consideration. I agree with this, even though it is undoubtedly “discrimination” and undoubtedly “unfair”.

So in the end, it really does come down to this: what is most important? The individual? Or the mission?

Reply December 06, 2010 at 04:13 PM

December 6, 2010 , 6:42PM Posted by | Don't Ask Don't Tell, GLBT Movement, Homosexual Movement, Military | Comments Off

I Scream, You Scream, Even GTMO Terrorists Scream for Ice Scream

Via Jonn Lilyea at This Ain’t Hell: Abusing detainees at Guantanamo; the horror, the horror

Yes, that’s right, the only thing this reporter could find to complain about is that detainees only get one ice cream each.

The ice cream rationing has now led the journalist to question Guantanamo Bay’s motives, suspecting that it might be an attempt to reduce spending.

Next thing you know, they won’t be allowed sprinkles or gummy bears on their single serving of ice cream.

Doug Powers at Michele Malkin’s place writes:

When the jack-booted era of Bush/Cheney came to a close I thought such human rights nightmares had ended, but apparently this kind of thing is still allowed in a so-called civilized society. Let’s just call it what it really is: Dairyboarding!

The Jawa Report has a picture of the actual sign on the refrigerator which proves the crime against humanity.

Okay, I’m convinced now. Prior to reading this article, I thought America was a great country. But now, after reading about how we’re denying Islamic terrorists more than one ice cream… G*D DAMN, AMERICA!!! Thank you, MF-ing media, for making me see the light about how EEEEVIL and HORRIBLE is America and our baby-killing, terrorist-torturing military.

RELATED: Gitmo detainees to be tortured by giving them only one scoop of ice cream

I wonder if they have a “scoop Nazi” at GTMO. “No scoop for you! NEXT!”

September 27, 2010 , 11:40AM Posted by | Media Bias, Military | Comments Off

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.