Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-20-2015, 11:03 AM
 
Location: Elysium
12,390 posts, read 8,159,056 times
Reputation: 9199

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWiseWino View Post
For as long as there have been different branches of the services there have been pissing matches over who trains the hardest and who is the toughest. According the Marines there is no need for special forces to begin with because they are the special forces. Then there is the Delta Force/Green Berets vs the SEALS and throw in the Air Forces' Pararescues, all you need is a bar with beer and this argument could go on for decades. In my estimation they are all bad MOFOS and a tip of the hat and a wag of the finger to them all.

But of course US Marines tend to be the worst of the bunch in that regard. You would think the first ten weeks in service is all that matters and just a couple of days ago on the Military forum one was trying to say how a Drill Instructor was all so different from a Drill Sergeant. I wonder if Navy SEALS getting all the press and movies finally got Marines assigned to the Special Operations Joint Command. But could anything stop them from proclaiming every unit that goes on a navy ship as "special operations capable" when every combat unit is special operations capable and will be assigned those missions should the ship or aircraft with the special operators be out of range.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-20-2015, 11:38 AM
 
46,964 posts, read 26,005,972 times
Reputation: 29454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Govie View Post
The bottom line is these women can never, ever, be able to do certain things physically stronger men can do.
Audie Murphy was 5' 5" and weighed 120 pounds soaking wet. He did fair-to-middlin', IIRC.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2015, 02:58 PM
 
7,578 posts, read 5,329,154 times
Reputation: 9447
Sgt. Maj. Colin Boley, the operations sergeant major for the Airborne and Ranger training brigade.
“Those two women are legit and would have had outstanding careers in the military with or without a tab,”
Sgt. First Class Tiffany Myrick, a military police noncommissioned officer who served as an observer and advisor at Ranger Schools.
“I knew it just by their performance during the smoke sessions how they stood out,” Myrick told Defense One this week. A lot of people were kind of hurting and they still looked strong – smoke session is like exercises and corrective training. That is what made them stand out was their performance during all the physical events.”
Meet the Women Who Survived Army's Ranger School (Navy SEALs Are Next) - Defense One
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2015, 04:10 PM
 
Location: east coast
2,846 posts, read 2,971,723 times
Reputation: 1971
They didn't relax anything. On the contrary, there are some weak dudes nowadays and so the overall standards have dropped. You know how much military training has become laxed to the point where recruits are complaining and instructors are getting reprimanded for "excessive tone".

So congrats to the women. These ain't your average panzy women just wanting to get on for women's rights. They are hard core.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2015, 04:54 PM
 
8,061 posts, read 4,888,032 times
Reputation: 2460
Default Why?

I was Infantry and it was tough enough for me. I trained with 2 /75 Rangers in Ft. Lewis it is not a walk in the park. We will have to see what actual role they play, like go on real missions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2015, 05:46 PM
 
17,273 posts, read 9,565,470 times
Reputation: 16468
Quote:
Originally Posted by Govie View Post
If anyone here - anyone - believes the standards have not been lowered and weakened, as I said I've got a bridge to sell you.



The bottom line is these women can never, ever, be able to do certain things physically stronger men can do. It's amazing how pathetic some in this country (and the West in general) have become - you tools will believe anything to make your liberal/bleeding hearts feel better.
Sounds like someone feels their masculinity is being threatened.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2015, 10:54 PM
 
Location: Washington DC
241 posts, read 360,172 times
Reputation: 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
It is tens of thousands of years of instinct of men taking care of women. In the end we are just animals.

Not to mention the majority of "combat" is not actually fighting other people. I don't know about you but a bunch of 18-25 year old men and women mixed together leads to one thing most of the time. They came up with the term sand goggles for a reason.
Couldn't they just give them some type of remedy that could reduce their sex drive? I heard they do that in the Canadian army.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2015, 11:07 PM
 
Location: Newport Beach, California
39,230 posts, read 27,618,080 times
Reputation: 16073
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissLadyLexi25 View Post
Couldn't they just give them some type of remedy that could reduce their sex drive? I heard they do that in the Canadian army.
If you had a brother serving in the Special forces, do you want your brother to put all these harmful chemicals in his body to alter his male hormones ?!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2015, 11:15 PM
 
Location: Washington DC
241 posts, read 360,172 times
Reputation: 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981 View Post
If you had a brother serving in the Special forces, do you want your brother to put all these harmful chemicals in his body to alter his male hormones ?!
I doubt the Canadian army would use it if it was "harmful." Its just a suggestion on how to make the combat dynamic between men and women easier.

Edit: Relax dear i doubt they are going to take my suggestion seriously.

Last edited by MissLadyLexi25; 08-20-2015 at 11:32 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2015, 01:24 AM
 
Location: Minnesota
1,548 posts, read 913,847 times
Reputation: 1413
Quote:
Originally Posted by halfamazing View Post
They didn't relax anything. On the contrary ... the overall standards have dropped.
This is exactly what I was thinking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:14 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top