Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course, this has nothing - NOTHING - whatsoever to do with military readiness. It's all about social reactionaries who demand that men and women adhere strictly to arbitrary society-imposed gender roles.
'military readiness'?
That's just another variation on the same old flaccid excuse served up whenever some sort of social change that frightens the change-averse is afoot: "OMG, the military will fall apart if we do this!"
Desegregate military units? "The military will fall apart! Blacks can't command whites!"
Allow women into the ranks and admit them to the service academies? "They can't handle it! The military will collapse!"
Open combat roles to women? "No! They're too weak and the military will fall apart!"
Let gays serve openly? "Unit cohesion will crumble! The military will implode!"
And?
None of that nonsense ever happened. It's nonsense. It was never about the military. And it isn't now. That's just the excuse proffered to rally people to their side as they attempt to keep whatever impending change is freaking them out at any given time.
I swear, fifty-thousand years ago there were probably a bunch of Neanderthals sitting around somewhere in what is now Germany, and half of them were complaining about how 'soft' people were becoming - doing things like cooking their meat instead of eating it raw, wearing clothes ("Whassamatter, Grog? Too wimpy to take cold without draping self in hides like women do?"), or fashioning bows and arrows to kill game from a distance rather than just running run and stabbing it with a spear ("Grog not man enough kill mammoth up close! Hide behind little bow!"). Centuries from now, it'll surely be the same song and dance.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,175 posts, read 13,455,286 times
Reputation: 19472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crosstimbers Okie
Young males are too weak to climb the stairs to get out of their mom's basements. So, grandpas have to step up.
I am not sure that everything stated in that video is true, and in terms of Britain, the cuts in Army numbers were prior to the Ukraine war, and we part of a move toward a more maritime role ans an increase in ship and submarine fleets, as well as cyber, space and other technology. Britain having being traditionally a naval power rather than a land power.
However another review is now being carried out, and it's likely that British Army numbers will be looked at again.
Let's see how many children of the current members of Congress are willing to fight for it on the front lines.
You must be using sarcasm here.
Now that you mention it, I'm not sure there were ever very many children of any Congress that enlisted to fight on the front lines since the Civil War.
Yes, we had soldiers who later entered politics, but that's a wholly different thing.
How many Congresscritter's kids went to Vietnam? Or Korea? Or even WWII?
That phrase you use “feminized west” is it also directed to the thousands of young women in the military? They’re as tough and capable as any man. We have two young women living in our neighborhood who are Navy pilots. .
Even male pilots would not assert that they are as "tough and capable" as any other man in all the services.
And the experience of the ground services says otherwise.
For that matter, even in my Air Force field, which was primarily a desk job, there was often still significant donkey work that the women couldn't handle.
That phrase you use “feminized west” is it also directed to the thousands of young women in the military? They’re as tough and capable as any man. We have two young women living in our neighborhood who are Navy pilots.
Anyone who uses the term "feminized west" likely refuses to acknowledge the existence of women in the military, or laughs and acts like DoD will come around eventually and admit that allowing them in was all a big joke. Any kind of person who would use the term "feminized west" wouldn't dare say a positive thing about a female pilot (unless it was about her body, of course).
Of course, this has nothing - NOTHING - whatsoever to do with military readiness. It's all about social reactionaries who demand that men and women adhere strictly to arbitrary society-imposed gender roles.
'military readiness'?
That's just another variation on the same old flaccid excuse served up whenever some sort of social change that frightens the change-averse is afoot: "OMG, the military will fall apart if we do this!"
Desegregate military units? "The military will fall apart! Blacks can't command whites!"
Allow women into the ranks and admit them to the service academies? "They can't handle it! The military will collapse!"
Open combat roles to women? "No! They're too weak and the military will fall apart!"
Let gays serve openly? "Unit cohesion will crumble! The military will implode!"
And?
None of that nonsense ever happened. It's nonsense. It was never about the military. And it isn't now. That's just the excuse proffered to rally people to their side as they attempt to keep whatever impending change is freaking them out at any given time.
Oh so true. I remember some of those discussions on letting gays openly serve and allowing women in combat. Some of those discussions on gays openly serving got pretty nasty, but then it all came to be and we didn't miss a step.
Donald Trump evaded military service because of something called a "bone spur" so why in particular knock Biden.
It must have been one of the great experiences in life to see the guy next door come home safe and sound from Canada after being pardoned by Jimmy Canada while you were in a wheelchair after losing both legs to a Bouncing Betty. Heck he might have even ended up marrying your high school sweetheart.
Last edited by James Austen; 07-07-2023 at 10:34 AM..
Oh so true. I remember some of those discussions on letting gays openly serve and allowing women in combat. Some of those discussions on gays openly serving got pretty nasty, but then it all came to be and we didn't miss a step.
The question of women in the frontline combat roles has yet to be proven.
When platoons composed totally of women are shown to be as generally effective as platoons composed totally of men, you have an argument.
Now that you mention it, I'm not sure there were ever very many children of any Congress that enlisted to fight on the front lines since the Civil War.
Yes, we had soldiers who later entered politics, but that's a wholly different thing.
How many Congresscritter's kids went to Vietnam? Or Korea? Or even WWII?
Any more than I can count on one hand?
The count for Vietnam is 27. Al Gore's father was a senator; Gore enlisted and served in a combat engineering brigade in Vietnam.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
