Women On the Front Lines

Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Women On the Front Lines

 Leon Panetta is supposedly going to announce that the ban on women serving on the front lines of battle is going to be lifted. Now I don't have a problem with women serving in combat per se. What I do have a problem with is the different physical fitness standards.

For example, to pass the PFT a male Marine has to do 3 pull ups, 60 crunches (in two minutes), and run 3 miles in 28 minutes. A female Marine has to do a "flexed arm hang" for 15 seconds, 44 crunches, and run 3 miles in 31 minutes. Note getting the minimums in all three is not enough to pass, you have to exceed the minimum, plus do well enough in another area to get a passing score.  (Of course, female Marines have standards almost as high as male army soldiers but that is cause the army is a bunch of pu.... wimps) 

Now if females are going to be doing behind the line work, it makes sense that they have easier requirements. However, if they are going to be running and gunning on the front lines, the fact that they are female doesn't matter shit when it comes to the sheer physical shape that is required to survive. You still have to carry around 80 pounds of stuff on your body and be able to run in it. If you need an assault pack that will add another 15-20 pounds or so. All this is before you get into carrying any specialized gear like an M240 (30 pounds) or communications equipment. It is not uncommon for a typical infantry soldier to be carrying 100-140 pounds of stuff total.  Then you have to have the ability to drag or carry a fallen soldier to safety (who also has on 60 pounds of armor). None of this stuff gets any lighter just because you are female and the enemy isn't going to stop shooting at you because of it either. IMO, if you are barely skating by the PFT as a male you have no business being on the front lines.

If you are not physically able to carry your part for the unit, you become a hazard to the lives of everyone around you. I think it is completely unacceptable to put our soldiers lives at risk in the name of gender equality. If a female can pass the exact same physical requirements as a male, great, let her serve on the front lines. If she can't, too bad and fuck feminism.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15697
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: Leon

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Leon Panetta is supposedly going to announce that the ban on women serving on the front lines of battle is going to be lifted. Now I don't have a problem with women serving in combat per se. What I do have a problem with is the different physical fitness standards.

For example, to pass the PFT a male Marine has to do 3 pull ups, 60 crunches (in two minutes), and run 3 miles in 28 minutes. A female Marine has to do a "flexed arm hang" for 15 seconds, 44 crunches, and run 3 miles in 31 minutes. Note getting the minimums in all three is not enough to pass, you have to exceed the minimum, plus do well enough in another area to get a passing score.  (Of course, female Marines have standards almost as high as male army soldiers but that is cause the army is a bunch of pu.... wimps) 

Now if females are going to be doing behind the line work, it makes sense that they have easier requirements. However, if they are going to be running and gunning on the front lines, the fact that they are female doesn't matter shit when it comes to the sheer physical shape that is required to survive. You still have to carry around 80 pounds of stuff on your body and be able to run in it. If you need an assault pack that will add another 15-20 pounds or so. All this is before you get into carrying any specialized gear like an M240 (30 pounds) or communications equipment. It is not uncommon for a typical infantry soldier to be carrying 100-140 pounds of stuff total.  Then you have to have the ability to drag or carry a fallen soldier to safety (who also has on 60 pounds of armor). None of this stuff gets any lighter just because you are female and the enemy isn't going to stop shooting at you because of it either. IMO, if you are barely skating by the PFT as a male you have no business being on the front lines.

If you are not physically able to carry your part for the unit, you become a hazard to the lives of everyone around you. I think it is completely unacceptable to put our soldiers lives at risk in the name of gender equality. If a female can pass the exact same physical requirements as a male, great, let her serve on the front lines. If she can't, too bad and fuck feminism.  

Quote:
If you are not physically able to carry your part for the unit, you become a hazard to the lives of everyone around you.

Thanks for the update. And just what makes you think the military does not wash out those who cant handle it? Men in all services are washed out of basic every year. I was a wash out myself. Did my penis make me fail? I handled the physical part fine. I washed out because I was not emotionally ready. And they put you in a wash out dorm and that dorm was full OF MEN, so men can and do fail too, and not just for physical reasons.

 

And passing physical training does not mean you can emotionally handle combat. Plenty of men crack on the battfield and or come home with PTSD.

It still boils down to if a person can do the job or not, not what is between their legs. Does that mean all women will make it? No, no more than I passed or failed because I was a man.

Thank you for your public service announcement on how to be a misogynistic jerk.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15697
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Oh and even Russia back in

Oh and even Russia back in WW2 had military female snipers who had to survive by themselves in the woods and sneak up and hide and hunt German officers.

This isn't a quota system. The Military still is going to test ANYONE wanting to do any job.

I've been to basic and even men are not all the same size. I saw MEN fail the physical part of basic. I failed the emotional part.

So you'd rather have me next to you because I have a penis rather than a smaller person who'd remain calm? Absolutes get people killed and your sexist attitude gets people killed. Physical ability wont help you at all if you emotionally cannot handle it.

You stupidly think women cant handle it. I think it is up to them, not you, to prove themselves.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 Did you read my post? My

 Did you read my post? My entire point was that if women are going to serve in combat they need to have the same physical requirements as males, currently the physical requirements are different especially when it comes to upper body strength (arguably the most important part for infantry). I have no problem with women in combat, as long as they can match the physical requirements. Those physical requirements should be the same for both males and females. Lowering them for soldiers just because of what is between their legs is dangerous for everyone.  

From the other side, what if a male happens to have a feminine body frame and is capable of passing the PFT with women's standards but fails the male one. Why should he be kicked out when some female who is identical to him in body size and physical capabilities gets to stay in? If the current female standards are sufficient enough to prepare a soldier than the male standards should be lowered.

In my opinion, the current standards for males is too low to prepare an infantry soldier. I think infantry standards should be higher than the regular standards and rather than separate the standards by sex they should separate them by job description. (They currently do have higher PFT standards for highly specialized positions such as Rangers or special forces) I have no problem with a woman being a Navy Seal or having any other position as long as they can pass the same test as the men. When they get easier tests, I think that is dangerous.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Beyond Saving

Brian37 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Leon Panetta is supposedly going to announce that the ban on women serving on the front lines of battle is going to be lifted. Now I don't have a problem with women serving in combat per se. What I do have a problem with is the different physical fitness standards.

For example, to pass the PFT a male Marine has to do 3 pull ups, 60 crunches (in two minutes), and run 3 miles in 28 minutes. A female Marine has to do a "flexed arm hang" for 15 seconds, 44 crunches, and run 3 miles in 31 minutes. Note getting the minimums in all three is not enough to pass, you have to exceed the minimum, plus do well enough in another area to get a passing score.  (Of course, female Marines have standards almost as high as male army soldiers but that is cause the army is a bunch of pu.... wimps) 

Now if females are going to be doing behind the line work, it makes sense that they have easier requirements. However, if they are going to be running and gunning on the front lines, the fact that they are female doesn't matter shit when it comes to the sheer physical shape that is required to survive. You still have to carry around 80 pounds of stuff on your body and be able to run in it. If you need an assault pack that will add another 15-20 pounds or so. All this is before you get into carrying any specialized gear like an M240 (30 pounds) or communications equipment. It is not uncommon for a typical infantry soldier to be carrying 100-140 pounds of stuff total.  Then you have to have the ability to drag or carry a fallen soldier to safety (who also has on 60 pounds of armor). None of this stuff gets any lighter just because you are female and the enemy isn't going to stop shooting at you because of it either. IMO, if you are barely skating by the PFT as a male you have no business being on the front lines.

If you are not physically able to carry your part for the unit, you become a hazard to the lives of everyone around you. I think it is completely unacceptable to put our soldiers lives at risk in the name of gender equality. If a female can pass the exact same physical requirements as a male, great, let her serve on the front lines. If she can't, too bad and fuck feminism.  

Quote:
If you are not physically able to carry your part for the unit, you become a hazard to the lives of everyone around you.

Thanks for the update. And just what makes you think the military does not wash out those who cant handle it? Men in all services are washed out of basic every year. I was a wash out myself. Did my penis make me fail? I handled the physical part fine. I washed out because I was not emotionally ready. And they put you in a wash out dorm and that dorm was full OF MEN, so men can and do fail too, and not just for physical reasons.

 

And passing physical training does not mean you can emotionally handle combat. Plenty of men crack on the battfield and or come home with PTSD.

It still boils down to if a person can do the job or not, not what is between their legs. Does that mean all women will make it? No, no more than I passed or failed because I was a man.

Thank you for your public service announcement on how to be a misogynistic jerk.

 

I'm going to side with Beyond on this subject.

When I was in The Corps they women had it much easier. We called them WM's (women marines) but now they wanted to be considered equals so marines are not allowed to call them WM's any more because all Marines are Marines? Right? No.

We slurred the WM several different ways, but all of us considered them Weaker Marines. None of them could keep up with us, carry the load we could, though some of the shit birds in our platoon couldn't out run the WM's.

I remember getting in to a tussle with a WM when I was up at Camp Jejeune. We had been out partying and this one girl who thought she was the shit started to fuck with me. She was always lifting weights with us in the training room, running with us, doing hand to hand with us, but when it came time to really put on the show she failed.

She was strong for a woman and knew her hand to hand, but I brute forced her to the ground and kicked her a couple of times. She got back up and tried to attack me again but I punched her once in the face and she was down for the count.

We ended up being good friends later because I, and the other guy marines, accepted her. She was a tough chick, but she wasn't ever as good as we were physically.

If we are going to have woman fighting up on the front lines they need to be stronger and have more stamina. I'm not saying they aren't mentally unprepared, I'm certain that plenty of women are better than men at that, but physically, I've yet to see a woman who was as good as a guy when it came to combat.

----

On another note, if you haven't read the books about Eastern Europe with the women used in combat, there is another side to the story for women. Yes, they can function in combat. There is proof that they can do so. But just like Beyond mentioned the requirements for women in the military is different and that needs to change.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
There's no logic in giving

There's no logic in giving sub-par training to an entire gender. Women should be outraged. So should men.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15697
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
This is not a quota system.

This is not a quota system. Technology as well has made things easier on both men and women.

And even on D-Day there were guys, of course a minority, but a few that when they got on the beaches they were so scared shitless they were useless. I would have done the same.

It is a mistake to assume that brawn is the only tactic that matters in a fight. You'd rather have me because I have a penis and get you killed, rather than a woman, who could remain calm and focused. STUPID and pathetic.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15697
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I've yet to see a

Quote:
I've yet to see a woman who was as good as a guy when it came to combat.

Again, this is not the days of muskets or even WW2. There are lots of jobs that require skill in shooting and armor and backup. And even house to house has been made much easier because of technology. Night vision goggles, heat sensors, robots search houses now.

Brawn is less of a factor than it used to be. It is still needed. But intel and brains and planning, win the day ultimately.

I sucked at firing a machine gun. But you cannot tell me that there are not women who could do it well. Hitting your target is what matters and most warfare today is not a battlefield, and the little that is is planned out, just like a swat team and a home standoff  in the states.

This is also a misunderstanding of evolution too.

"Survival of the fittest". No, evolution is the ability to adapt.

A 145lb man with a beer gut can shoot and kill an unarmed 250 weightlifter. Why, because they adapted, not because they were bigger.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
You're completely missing

You're completely missing every point and assuming sexism where there is none.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:I've yet

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
I've yet to see a woman who was as good as a guy when it came to combat.

Again, this is not the days of muskets or even WW2. There are lots of jobs that require skill in shooting and armor and backup. And even house to house has been made much easier because of technology. Night vision goggles, heat sensors, robots search houses now.

Brawn is less of a factor than it used to be. It is still needed. But intel and brains and planning, win the day ultimately.

Bullshit, in Vietnam the average soldier carried 20-40 pounds of equipment. Today the average soldier carries 100+ pounds- most of it because of the armor- that shit is really heavy. Brawn is more important for a front line soldier today than in the past and if you are going to take that job you have to be physically capable of doing it.

 

Brian37 wrote:
 

I sucked at firing a machine gun. But you cannot tell me that there are not women who could do it well. Hitting your target is what matters and most warfare today is not a battlefield, and the little that is is planned out, just like a swat team and a home standoff  in the states.

This is also a misunderstanding of evolution too.

"Survival of the fittest". No, evolution is the ability to adapt.

A 145lb man with a beer gut can shoot and kill an unarmed 250 weightlifter. Why, because they adapted, not because they were bigger.

You obviously haven't talked to any of the vets returning home from overseas or have any fucking clue the physical difficulty of what our soldiers go through. Like I said, if a woman can match the same physical requirements men have then they should be allowed to serve. Israel is like that, women can serve in any position but have to meet the exact same standards as men. The result is that very few women make the cut for front line positions. I do think it makes far more sense to base fitness standards on MOS rather than sex. Someone in an MOS where they will never leave base doesn't need to be capable of combat while carrying 100 pounds of equipment, whether male or female. The antiquated method of separating men and women for the sake of separating them needs to end. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:It is a

Brian37 wrote:

It is a mistake to assume that brawn is the only tactic that matters in a fight. You'd rather have me because I have a penis and get you killed, rather than a woman, who could remain calm and focused. STUPID and pathetic.

I wouldn't want you next to me in a battle in a million years. Like I said, imo the physical standards for men who are in combat positions should be higher than it is. There is a real problem with some of our soldiers not being able to meet the physical challenges and they are a danger to themselves and the rest of their unit. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:This is not a

Brian37 wrote:

This is not a quota system. Technology as well has made things easier on both men and women.

And even on D-Day there were guys, of course a minority, but a few that when they got on the beaches they were so scared shitless they were useless. I would have done the same.

It is a mistake to assume that brawn is the only tactic that matters in a fight. You'd rather have me because I have a penis and get you killed, rather than a woman, who could remain calm and focused. STUPID and pathetic.

You misunderstand the situation. I agree that women have their place in combat. I've always wanted them to be in combat, but given the current training regiment that the women have, they are not combat ready.

Put that same D Day landing craft on the beach filled with women carrying a 60 lb pack, full gear, etc, and they will never make it to the beach. Not a single woman.

And no.. I wouldn't want some one like you in combat. You're the type we just shoot in the leg and call it an accident. Sorry, no offense, but if you are being a shithead and stepping out of line I'd rather just shoot your ass and get you out of there.

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

It is a mistake to assume that brawn is the only tactic that matters in a fight. You'd rather have me because I have a penis and get you killed, rather than a woman, who could remain calm and focused. STUPID and pathetic.

I wouldn't want you next to me in a battle in a million years. Like I said, imo the physical standards for men who are in combat positions should be higher than it is. There is a real problem with some of our soldiers not being able to meet the physical challenges and they are a danger to themselves and the rest of their unit. 

He doesn't understand because he's never been in training or in combat. He doesn't understand that if they (the government) do not prepare those women just like they do the men then when women go in to combat they are a liability. Yes... there are going to be some GI Janes which can carry the load, but that is going to be a very small number.


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
I'm about as close to being

I'm about as close to being a male feminist as you can get.  I was raised by strong, well educated, professional women and I have two daughters.   I'm all for gender equality.

Women should not be on the front lines in combat.

That's not misogynist.  That's simple glaring factual admission of male/female differences.

As an example, if I need someone to write their name in the snow while they are taking a piss, it makes sense that a male can do the job much more easy than a female.  I'm not saying that women aren't good enough to do that job.  They are physically different than males.

Let the men fight and die on the front lines.   It's what we are suited for.   Women and children need to stay in the rear with the gear.

I guarantee you that our soldiers witnessing fellow soldiers that are female being killed in war (or taken prisoner and repeatedly gang raped) will skyrocket PTSD and suicides among the male survivors.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:As an example,

Watcher wrote:

As an example, if I need someone to write their name in the snow while they are taking a piss, it makes sense that a male can do the job much more easy than a female.  I'm not saying that women aren't good enough to do that job.  They are physically different than males.

I am glad to know that I am not the only one that has ever tried to do something like that.  I was pretty young at the time, like 20 or something.

Laughing out loud

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:You're

digitalbeachbum wrote:

You're the type we just shoot in the leg and call it an accident. Sorry, no offense, but if you are being a shithead and stepping out of line I'd rather just shoot your ass and get you out of there.

 

  Shoot a fellow Marine in the leg because they're sub-par, ...okay.  Better hope that Private Legwound isn't the type to hold a grudge.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote: 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  Shoot a fellow Marine in the leg because they're sub-par, ...okay.  Better hope that Private Legwound isn't the type to hold a grudge.

Hehehe.

I bet he would really be pissed off if he ever got a nick name like Private Legwound.

Especially if people were fond of telling people HOW he got that nickname.

Reminds me of a guy that was unfortunate enough to get the nickname 7UP.

7UP woke up with a slightly bad hangover and started drinking hair of the dog that bit him the night before (or so he told the story).

Anyway, right in the middle of his morning drinking, he got on the phone (landline) and it was an important call.

Well, he needed to take a piss really badly and saw an empty 7UP bottle. So he used that and put the cap back on it...then forgot about it.

A little later on that morning, while he was drinking some whiskey, he saw the 7UP bottle and decided to take a swig of that behind his liquor.

Well....you can imagine the look on his face.

Bad part about it, he told everyone about it, and ever since that day, he has been 7UP to everyone that knows him.

Can you imagine the story behind Private Legwound ?

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  Shoot a fellow Marine in the leg because they're sub-par, ...okay.  Better hope that Private Legwound isn't the type to hold a grudge.

Hehehe.

I bet he would really be pissed off if he ever got a nick name like Private Legwound.

  Well , yeah he'd probably be pissed off about that too.   Actually I was referring to the risk of that wounded Marine taking measures to get even ( ie, fratricide ) with the dude that shot him.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote: 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  Well , yeah he'd probably be pissed off about that too.   Actually I was referring to the risk of that wounded Marine taking measures to get even ( ie, fratricide ) with the dude that shot him.

All joking aside on my part, I bet that could be a potential possibility if the wounded private were to find out he was intentionally shot in the leg.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:I'm about as

Watcher wrote:

I'm about as close to being a male feminist as you can get.  I was raised by strong, well educated, professional women and I have two daughters.   I'm all for gender equality.

Women should not be on the front lines in combat.

That's not misogynist.  That's simple glaring factual admission of male/female differences.

As an example, if I need someone to write their name in the snow while they are taking a piss, it makes sense that a male can do the job much more easy than a female.  I'm not saying that women aren't good enough to do that job.  They are physically different than males.

Let the men fight and die on the front lines.   It's what we are suited for.   Women and children need to stay in the rear with the gear.

I guarantee you that our soldiers witnessing fellow soldiers that are female being killed in war (or taken prisoner and repeatedly gang raped) will skyrocket PTSD and suicides among the male survivors.

Check the history books. Women can be just as good at fighting a war as men. Check China, SE Asia, many European wars. Women can snipe, bomb, etc. It works. Only a foolish leader would think women couldn't do that stuff.

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

You're the type we just shoot in the leg and call it an accident. Sorry, no offense, but if you are being a shithead and stepping out of line I'd rather just shoot your ass and get you out of there.

 

  Shoot a fellow Marine in the leg because they're sub-par, ...okay.  Better hope that Private Legwound isn't the type to hold a grudge.

When I was going through training at Camp LeJeune I was told by several hard core marines who had served in battle that shitbirds sometimes get friendly fire. It happens, people accidentally get shot in battle, it happens more than you will ever hear on tv, they told me.

I believed them.

 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:When I

digitalbeachbum wrote:

When I was going through training at Camp LeJeune I was told by several hard core marines who had served in battle that shitbirds sometimes get friendly fire. It happens, people accidentally get shot in battle, it happens more than you will ever hear on tv, they told me.

I believed them.

 

That doesn't surprise me too much.

My dad never talked about Vietnam too much, but I do remember him alluding to stuff like that taking place quite often.

He never offered up many details about it, but I don't think he had any reason to lie about it.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:When I

digitalbeachbum wrote:

When I was going through training at Camp LeJeune I was told by several hard core marines who had served in battle that shitbirds sometimes get friendly fire. It happens, people accidentally get shot in battle, it happens more than you will ever hear on tv, they told me.

I believed them.

 

    I completely believe you, hence the creation of the term "fragging".

  My issue was not whether it actually occurs, but what if the shit bird recovers from his / her injuries ( per your scenario ), rejoins their unit, hears a few rumors about who shot them and why, and decide on a little payback ?  

Seriously, how could the shitbird spend 24 hours a day around other highly motivated Marines, and not know that being a shitbird puts a target on their back ?  That's like a gay person who lives around rednecks not knowing to watch out for attacks from homophobes.

  Anyway.....

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
It makes perfect sense. You

It makes perfect sense. You need to depend on everyone you work with in the military. If there's someone who might get you and your team killed, who isn't trusted, and in the field; the quick and easy option is to remove them yourself.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: ...the quick

Vastet wrote:
...the quick and easy option is to remove them yourself.

 

   Vastet, do you think every soldier / Marine is of the same mind regarding battlefield "justice" ?   And after you've killed Private Shitbird what are you going to do now,  kill all your fellow soldiers who might later reveal to authorities what happened ?  Lots of military cover-ups concerning extra-legal behavior were prosecuted  long after the incidents had occurred.

  Who do you think reveals the incriminating evidence ?  Other soldiers.  

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  ...but I will add that

  ...but I will add that American military justice is pathetically meaningless when addressing the crimes of its own personnel.  The My Lai massacre in Viet Nam is but one of many examples where the punishment of American soldiers was actually no punishment at all.

  Never mind.  Frag away.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
I do know from personal

I do know from personal experience that shitbirds were beaten by other members of the platoon for fucking things up. Like doing something really stupid and getting our liberty taken away. There was one time this small group of shitheads went out in the woods behind our barracks and were doing some dumb shit like "satanic" crap. It was just a rumor that I heard, but there was a small animal sacrifice made and there was a fire.

Anyway, they got caught and because there were others who didn't speak up for what they knew every one got punished.

Now, that's 50-60 marines who lost base privileges and no liberty for three weeks because a small group of shitheads got stupid.

The people who knew about the shit and didn't say any thing got guard duty for a month, nobody complained about that so we let it slide.

The other shitheads, well "satanic" shit didn't sit well with us. We didn't want assholes like that in our platoon causing trouble. So one by one a group got them alone and let them know what was going to happen to them if they did that shit again.

It appears only one of them was the leader. He was the real hard ass who convinced the others to follow him.

The followers dumped him real quick and fell in line with the rest of us.

One night the shithead got caught out alone on liberty (the following month). He had gotten a whore and went back to his room.

The whore he got was a setup. First we paid her to hit on him because every one knew she was infected. He was too drunk to know, so he got the drip later on. Always use protection guys.

Then after they were done fucking she left the door open and we went in and filled the tub with a yellow dye. We then soaked him in it, including all his hair and brow, etc. Don't worry we didn't let him drown.

When he woke up he was completely this neon pea yellow top to bottom. I mean... you could see him from a mile away.

When he got back to base he was the laughing stock of the entire company. I mean every one knew who he was and what the fuck was up.

He was so fucked up mentally that he asked for leave while the dye wore off. They let him go home and to satisfy the family, etc, they base commander did this completely bogus investigation on the issue.

We actually got kudos from the SSGT, GSGT and MSGT for what we did because it was non-violent but funny as shit to see.

When the guy got back to base he was shunned for a while but he got his shit squared away really quickly. He had to make a decision to become one of us or he was going to be an outsider for the rest of his stint in the corps.

I lost track of the guy when he got moved out to "the rock" (Okinawa) but when he left he knew his shit inside and out. I suspect he became some kind of hero or something because he was a hard core marine.

Now apply this sort of thing to war when you are getting shot at and shit. I mean your life is on the line and you got kids and a wife at home.

Other marines, the ones in the shit, they don't fuck around. That's some serious shit you get involved in. No one wants to die because some shithead has his head up his ass.

How many friendly fire incidents happen like this, I dunno, I bet if they do happen that the military covers it up.

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Vastet, do you think every soldier / Marine is of the same mind regarding battlefield "justice" ?

Nope. Not surprised you're jumping to conclusions as usual either.

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
And after you've killed Private Shitbird what are you going to do now,  kill all your fellow soldiers who might later reveal to authorities what happened ?

The only ones who'll find out are those who agree with the decision. War scenes aren't reconstructed by detectives last I checked.

Or someone'll find out and a few soldiers will be charged. Less of a problem for them than getting killed or captured by the enemy.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:How

digitalbeachbum wrote:

How many friendly fire incidents happen like this, I dunno, I bet if they do happen that the military covers it up.

 

I have heard my late father talk of green lieutenants that would come into Vietnam, fresh out of military school and thinking that playing hero with everyone was the way to go.

These guys did not get shot, necessarily, but it was not as uncommon as one might think for a sargeant and some guys to "school" him.

Although I have heard of much darker incidents taking place.

But, like I said, the last thing my father ever wanted to do was talk about Vietnam.

I don't even know who he was with over there or anything, other than the fact that he was regular Army infantry.

He came home, threw his two medals away(bronze star and a purple heart) and never really talked too much about it again.

I remember him actually telling a couple of people in church that he did not go.

Whatever happened in combat over there, it was definitely something that he wanted to forget.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

 

Check the history books. Women can be just as good at fighting a war as men. Check China, SE Asia, many European wars. Women can snipe, bomb, etc. It works. Only a foolish leader would think women couldn't do that stuff.

 

I am reading numerous history books at this current time.

I will repeat myself.   I'm not saying women aren't good enough to do the job.   I'm NOT saying they CAN NOT do the job.

I'm saying they SHOULD NOT.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote: I

harleysportster wrote:

 

I have heard my late father talk of green lieutenants that would come into Vietnam, fresh out of military school and thinking that playing hero with everyone was the way to go.

These guys did not get shot, necessarily, but it was not as uncommon as one might think for a sargeant and some guys to "school" him.

Although I have heard of much darker incidents taking place.

In the later years of the Vietnam war fraggings were fairly common.

It didn't help that you had a bunch of draftees being led around by an unexperienced Lieutenant.   Lieutenants had a really high fatality rate during the Vietnam war.

The war between America and Vietnam was one of the most dysfunctional American wars in our history.   It was like a bad acid trip with a shit ton of blood and guts.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

How many friendly fire incidents happen like this, I dunno, I bet if they do happen that the military covers it up.

 

I have heard my late father talk of green lieutenants that would come into Vietnam, fresh out of military school and thinking that playing hero with everyone was the way to go.

These guys did not get shot, necessarily, but it was not as uncommon as one might think for a sergeant and some guys to "school" him.

Although I have heard of much darker incidents taking place.

I agree that it doesn't happen every day or even on a monthly basis, but we are talking about a war which is over ten years now and even if it is a dozen friendly fire deaths that's one a year that wasn't reported to the media.

I suspect that most of the times they school the individual to get them up to speed, such as my experience in The Corps. Having a platoon of grown men threaten to beat your ass will straighten you up pretty quickly and if it doesn't then the ass beating will.

I think there are extreme situations were it does happen though.

 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:I

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I suspect that most of the times they school the individual to get them up to speed, such as my experience in The Corps. Having a platoon of grown men threaten to beat your ass will straighten you up pretty quickly and if it doesn't then the ass beating will.

I think there are extreme situations were it does happen though.

 

Well yeah I would agree.

I don't think platoons are just going around shooting troublemakers and pain in the ass lieutenants, but I am pretty sure that it has happened a bit more often than people would imagine.

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:I

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I suspect that most of the times they school the individual to get them up to speed, such as my experience in The Corps. Having a platoon of grown men threaten to beat your ass will straighten you up pretty quickly and if it doesn't then the ass beating will.

 

 

  Okay, I'm not trying to stir the pot but with all the discussion of females operating in an infantry role I'm wondering if they would also be subjected to the ass whipping if they fail to measure up in actual combat ?

Flying a jet or a helicopter or being in mechanized warfare does not penalize a woman for lacking the physical brawn of male soldiers but in ground combat the differences between male and female would be pronounced.

  Would female shitbirds also be subjected to the "culling" process of physical assaults and / or friendly fire ?   Would there be a hesitancy because the trouble maker is female ?

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote: 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  Okay, I'm not trying to stir the pot but with all the discussion of females operating in an infantry role I'm wondering if they would also be subjected to the ass whipping if they fail to measure up in actual combat ?

Flying a jet or a helicopter or being in mechanized warfare does not penalize a woman for lacking the physical brawn of male soldiers but in ground combat the differences between male and female would be pronounced.

  Would female shitbirds also be subjected to the "culling" process of physical assaults and / or friendly fire ?   Would there be a hesitancy because the trouble maker is female ?

That is actually a relevant question to the topic at hand.

One that I actually don't think I could answer, since I have never served or seen military combat.

But I would be curious as to how soldiers would apply those standards and how they would handle that.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I suspect that most of the times they school the individual to get them up to speed, such as my experience in The Corps. Having a platoon of grown men threaten to beat your ass will straighten you up pretty quickly and if it doesn't then the ass beating will.

 

  Okay, I'm not trying to stir the pot but with all the discussion of females operating in an infantry role I'm wondering if they would also be subjected to the ass whipping if they fail to measure up in actual combat ?

Flying a jet or a helicopter or being in mechanized warfare does not penalize a woman for lacking the physical brawn of male soldiers but in ground combat the differences between male and female would be pronounced.

  Would female shitbirds also be subjected to the "culling" process of physical assaults and / or friendly fire ?   Would there be a hesitancy because the trouble maker is female ?

It isn't the same for non-commissioned as it is for commissioned; and in the military there was a well defined line between the two.

Women on both ends get treated differently and its weird how they put each other in their "places" when there are problems.

Also, when men and woman are working together, there is a definite difference between the two. It's so fucking weird the shit I've seen.

I know most of it is because of "respect" but commissioned people really think they are the shit over the non-commissioned while back on base. When they get in the field, it's a totally different story almost all the time.

I remember a husband and wife who were non-commissioned and commissioned respectively.

The wife and husband kissed (a little too much) while on base and someone must have seen them do it. The wife got her ass chewed out so bad that she could taste the CO's lunch.

The husband? Nothing happened to him. They just blew it off like nothing happened.

Did she get chewed out for political reasons? Because she was a woman? What if the roles had been reversed? I bet the guy would have been left alone and the woman would have still be chewed out.

 

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 I don't think actual

 I don't think actual shootings or fraggings happen as often now as they did in Vietnam. Partly because in Vietnam the military was less voluntary, less trained and were thrown into a combat situation immediately. And partly because today there are in fact battlefield detectives who look at forensic evidence to determine exactly what happened either to award medals or to discipline in the case of friendly fire.

There is actually quite a bit of controversy among military circles right now because awards, particularly high ones like the Medal of Honor, are given out far less frequently because all MOH nominees go through a grueling process that includes forensics techniques that were not possible in previous wars. In previous wars, medals were awarded mostly on the basis of testimony, which when forensics techniques are applied it turns out (not so surprisingly) that soldiers in the middle of a firefight are not exactly reliable witnesses when it comes to determining what actually happened. 

For example, take the case of Sgt. Rafael Peralta who according to the testimony of his fellow Marines threw himself on top of a grenade absorbing the explosion and saving his fellow Marines. Based on the forensics, they determined that he was most likely dead from a bullet to the head and his falling over the grenade was sheer luck. So no MOH for him, whereas 30 years ago he would have gotten that honor. 

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2012/12/marine-leon-panetta-rafael-peralta-medal-of-honor-121312-w/

The result is that fewer people have been awarded the MOH in the current wars than any war since the MOH was created during the Civil War. 

 

Add on that a substantial portion of soldiers that have helmet cams the idea of simply eliminating an asshole from your unit without getting caught is absurd. It just simply isn't the same military that existed in the Vietnam era. Hazing though, there is still plenty of that going around and as long as no one suffers any serious injuries the CO's are pretty much willing to let it happen. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Hazing

Beyond Saving wrote:
Hazing though, there is still plenty of that going around and as long as no one suffers any serious injuries the CO's are pretty much willing to let it happen. 

 

  Beyond, when you were still active duty Force Recon did you ever come across or know of any examples of the blood pinning "ceremonies" where the jump pin emblem is pounded into the Marine's chest ?

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Add on

Beyond Saving wrote:

Add on that a substantial portion of soldiers that have helmet cams the idea of simply eliminating an asshole from your unit without getting caught is absurd. It just simply isn't the same military that existed in the Vietnam era. Hazing though, there is still plenty of that going around and as long as no one suffers any serious injuries the CO's are pretty much willing to let it happen. 

 

Can't speak for the present day military actions, but I have heard tales of guys that were given highly dangerous assignments where their chances of surviving were slim to none.

For instance, rather than actually put a bullet into an officer's head, said officer was simply maneuvered into a precarious position where their chances of death increased. How that would be done when an officer is in charge I would not know (however, from what I have read and heard, there are plenty of sargeants that have much more control than officers, but I have no personal experience with the military).

I have also read about a situation where someone was set up to die.

I am not sure how the exact thing worked, but in one particular book I read, there was an incident when say, a brand new guy on his first day, might be placed on a certain patrol and ordered to shoot at anything that came out of the bushes, and it was hinted that new guy was placed there for the sole purpose of shooting an officer that might come out of those very bushes.

Now how true something like that might be, and how much of that would be speculation from some journalist (I don't have the book anymore, so I can't quote the exact story nor how it was set up) would be something that I could not know, because I don't know how military operations and assignments are set up.

But I would agree that the current military conflict and the conflict of today are complete apples and oranges. Questions of terrain, technology and the absence of people being drafted and forced to go probably makes a difference.

Although, I do know of one biker bro that was in the National Guard for benefits and paid education when he was younger. The minute that Desert Storm hit, he got deployed immediately.

When asked about it, he always shrugs and says "Yeah, I was in the military for the benefits, but I knew the risks when I signed up" BUT, he did claim that there were a couple of dudes in his unit that went into a freakout about being deployed. (I.E. I did not sign up for this etc.)

However, I still see a major difference in voluntary service and a draft.

I think while dudes in the National Guard might be a bit apprehensie over an armed conflict,they have been trained to deal with combat and   in the back of their minds they already know that they can be put into the middle of a war.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Beyond

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
Hazing though, there is still plenty of that going around and as long as no one suffers any serious injuries the CO's are pretty much willing to let it happen. 

 

  Beyond, when you were still active duty Force Recon did you ever come across or know of any examples of the blood pinning "ceremonies" where the jump pin emblem is pounded into the Marine's chest ?

Heard lots of stories but I was there when blood pinning and blood striping ceremonies were really being cracked down on because of negative media coverage so never got to experience it. Those are mostly a thing of the past now. The hazing I witnessed was more along the lines of disciplining people who fucked up. For example, we were doing some force on force training and we all got our asses shot because a dipshit on watch nodded off/zoned out or for whatever fucking reason let the opposition stroll right past him without warning us- and managed to not get shot himself. So A+ for concealment... we were all rather pissed so we used him as target practice to burn the rest of our SESAMS (basically a paintball with significantly more power than your regular paintballs- it can leave a bruise) He took it in pretty good humor, cussed us out and paid more attention in the future.  

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:For

Beyond Saving wrote:
For example, take the case of Sgt. Rafael Peralta who according to the testimony of his fellow Marines threw himself on top of a grenade absorbing the explosion and saving his fellow Marines. Based on the forensics, they determined that he was most likely dead from a bullet to the head and his falling over the grenade was sheer luck. So no MOH for him, whereas 30 years ago he would have gotten that honor. 

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2012/12/marine-leon-panetta-rafael-peralta-medal-of-honor-121312-w/

The result is that fewer people have been awarded the MOH in the current wars than any war since the MOH was created during the Civil War. 

 

 

What a crock. Like they know his last actions weren't... "gotta help them.. going to die anyway".

Fucking shitwipes.

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  Beyond, when you were still active duty Force Recon did you ever come across or know of any examples of the blood pinning "ceremonies" where the jump pin emblem is pounded into the Marine's chest ?

Heard lots of stories but I was there when blood pinning and blood striping ceremonies were really being cracked down on because of negative media coverage so never got to experience it. Those are mostly a thing of the past now. The hazing I witnessed was more along the lines of disciplining people who fucked up. For example, we were doing some force on force training and we all got our asses shot because a dipshit on watch nodded off/zoned out or for whatever fucking reason let the opposition stroll right past him without warning us- and managed to not get shot himself. So A+ for concealment... we were all rather pissed so we used him as target practice to burn the rest of our SESAMS (basically a paintball with significantly more power than your regular paintballs- it can leave a bruise) He took it in pretty good humor, cussed us out and paid more attention in the future.  

 

My buddy went in with me at the same time, he went RECON and I went computers... but he did have it happen to him.

They stuck the fucking pin right in him.

That was... hmmm 1989-90ish.

 

 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:My

digitalbeachbum wrote:

My buddy went in with me at the same time, he went RECON and I went computers... but he did have it happen to him.

They stuck the fucking pin right in him.

That was... hmmm 1989-90ish.

 

 

     I assume you enlisted in the Marines after high school, so that would have made you about 18 during this time ?   ( In 1989 I was 29 years old and just beginning to develop my interest in weapons and all things military. )

  Did you get sent down to Panama during operation Just Cause or to Iraq during the first Gulf War ?  During that time it seemed like the US military was putting out fires all over the world.

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Latest News

Here is a bit of the latest news from a survey taken from the anonymous Marines Point of View :

http://news.yahoo.com/marine-survey-lists-concerns-women-combat-002047180.html

Marine survey lists concerns on women in combat

SAN DIEGO (AP) — Male Marines listed being falsely accused of sexual harassment or assault as a top concern in a survey about moving women into combat jobs, and thousands indicated the change could prompt them to leave the service altogether.

The anonymous online questionnaire by the Marine Corps surveyed 53,000 troops last summer, with the results provided to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta before he opened thousands of combat positions to women last week.

The Marine Corps released the results to The Associated Press on Friday.

Among the other top concerns listed by male Marines were possible fraternization and preferential treatment of some Marines.

Respondents also worried that women would be limited because of pregnancy or personal issues that could affect a unit before it's sent to the battlefield.

Military experts said the results were not surprising because the Marines have the highest percentage of males among the branches of the armed forces.

Former Marine infantry officer Greg Jacob of the Service Women's Action Network said the Pentagon's estimate that 86 percent of assault victims opt against filing complaints "suggests that there's hardly an overabundance of reports, false or otherwise."

Some, however, said the survey shows the need for sensitivity training and guidance from leadership so the change goes smoothly, as occurred when the military ended its policy that barred openly gay troops.

"I think there is this sense among what I would imagine is a very small minority of Marines that this male bastion is under siege and this is one more example of political correctness," said David J. R. Frakt, a military law expert and lieutenant colonel in the Air Force reserves.

Just as the Marine Corps adjusted to the end of "don't ask, don't tell," despite being the most resistant among the military branches, troops will likely fall in line again with this latest historical milestone, said Frakt, a visiting professor at the University of Pittsburgh.

(The rest of the article can be found at the link. Why it is typing everything and pasting everything in Italics is a mystery to me, but I have been fooling with it for six minutes now, and I grow weary of trying to figure out this computer) Smiling

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

My buddy went in with me at the same time, he went RECON and I went computers... but he did have it happen to him.

They stuck the fucking pin right in him.

That was... hmmm 1989-90ish.

     I assume you enlisted in the Marines after high school, so that would have made you about 18 during this time ?   ( In 1989 I was 29 years old and just beginning to develop my interest in weapons and all things military. )

  Did you get sent down to Panama during operation Just Cause or to Iraq during the first Gulf War ?  During that time it seemed like the US military was putting out fires all over the world.

I was on standby during Panama. During operation Desert Shield my unit was deployed to the Gulf but I stayed home. I actually was released to go home three weeks before they cancelled all leaves and discharges. I had an opportunity to go back to LeJeune but I really was done. I couldn't run any more and my feet were swollen like to red balloons.

 

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
 Women Marines of the Future

This is what it will be like in the future...