- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Marine Corps Times - First female infantry Marines joining battalion on Thursday
Posted on 1/4/17 at 4:07 pm to Andrew Rowan
Posted on 1/4/17 at 4:07 pm to Andrew Rowan
quote:
What did I say that was wrong?
How to say it?
Women are not going out of the US Military. An obsession with such makes you a little suspect in the rationality department.
Posted on 1/4/17 at 4:09 pm to WhiskeyPapa
But I was right about Capt Petrino?
Posted on 1/4/17 at 6:14 pm to Andrew Rowan
I totally agree that women in combat is a bad idea, but I don't understand your logic for the rest of your argument. Let's just say that you get your way and all women are discharged tomorrow. How do you propose that we fill the huge shortage of personnel? Are you proposing to start drafting males from the general population? If not, what makes you realistically believe that all of these able bodied males who have previously shown zero interest in serving would be flocking to enlist? The only ways to increase the supply of people to those proportions that I know of would be to pay significantly more money or to significantly reduce standards. The first option blows your cost saving argument out of the water. And do you really want a huge influx of rejects to fill the gap? I'll hang up and listen.
Posted on 1/4/17 at 6:16 pm to Andrew Rowan
quote:
Over/Under on the first false rape or sexual harassment claim set at 1 month.
Generous
Posted on 1/4/17 at 7:02 pm to Andrew Rowan
"But I was right about Captain Petrino?"
That isn't even her name.
That isn't even her name.
This post was edited on 1/4/17 at 7:03 pm
Posted on 1/4/17 at 7:09 pm to WhiskeyPapa
Sorry I misplaced a couple of the 14 vowels in that Italians name. The point stands though. I'm right, you're wrong....and there's nothing you can do about it.
Posted on 1/4/17 at 7:51 pm to LPTReb
quote:
Let's just say that you get your way and all women are discharged tomorrow. How do you propose that we fill the huge shortage of personnel? Are you proposing to start drafting males from the general population? If not, what makes you realistically believe that all of these able bodied males who have previously shown zero interest in serving would be flocking to enlist? The only ways to increase the supply of people to those proportions that I know of would be to pay significantly more money or to significantly reduce standards. The first option blows your cost saving argument out of the water. And do you really want a huge influx of rejects to fill the gap? I'll hang up and listen.
I reject the entire premise. There is no shortfall of personnel. Our military was much larger in the 80's with a tiny fraction of the amount of females in the service. They were paid less and the economy was booming. Now the pay is good, benefits are great and the country is in a recession with less private s crop jobs to compete with and we have a lot less spots to fill. Our population has also grown by like 50 million. I refuse to buy the notion that there simply aren't enough men in this country to fill out ranks. It's makes zero sense whatsoever.
Posted on 1/4/17 at 8:04 pm to Andrew Rowan
You make absolutely no sense, and you didn't even answer the question. If we discharged all female military personnel tomorrow, there would be a sudden shortfall of personnel IN THE MILITARY due to the spots vacated by these women. So, how do you propose we then fill out the ranks? Citing population statistics doesn't automatically fill these spots. You have to actually get people out of the civilian population to fill them. Why would they suddenly rush to sign up tomorrow? By your logic, the military should already be extremely overstaffed, but that isn't the case in the real world.
Posted on 1/4/17 at 8:06 pm to LPTReb
quote:Link to where I said we should kick them out immediately? Just stop recruiting them and recruit more men. It's fricking easy.
If we discharged all female military personnel tomorrow, there would be a sudden shortfall of personnel IN THE MILITARY due to the spots vacated by these women.
quote:Hpw did we get them to do it in the eighties? We should do that again.
Why would they suddenly rush to sign up tomorrow? By your logic, the military should already be extremely overstaffed, but that isn't the case in the real world.
Posted on 1/4/17 at 8:07 pm to LPTReb
quote:
So, how do you propose we then fill out the ranks?
We could start by trimming the ranks. There are plenty of useless jobs in the military that can go away.
Posted on 1/4/17 at 8:09 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Figures you and your kayak would think this nutjob being a contrarian troll made sense.
Posted on 1/4/17 at 8:09 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
That's the obvious answer.
But assuming we absolutely HAD to keep the military it's current size it could easily be done.
But assuming we absolutely HAD to keep the military it's current size it could easily be done.
Posted on 1/4/17 at 8:09 pm to Wolfhound45
quote:
female infantry Marines
I'm so glad I missed this. The Lioness bullshite was bad enough.
Posted on 1/4/17 at 8:10 pm to cajunangelle
quote:
kayak
No, you can't have any kayak pics.
Posted on 1/4/17 at 8:10 pm to cajunangelle
quote:
I witnessed this first hand through many CONUS towns and overseas; being the dependent- very angered that females took the shore duty billets while my spouse had to deploy. I knew of at least three at the time that got pregnant (in some cases by the married Nav and Marines) just to get the coveted shore duty billets. There was one United States Ship permanently moored to the pier @ NOB Norf full of females getting ship duty on their records; yet it was shore duty. And they advanced in rank to CPO quite easily over the males-- pulling this trick. Leaving me to raise our children basically alone- as chief bottle washer.
I was very good friends with AD females that worked under my husband and they would get migraines every other week and need to go sleep-out their narc shot for 2 days. And they were overseas and not combat duty. I think there is a role for females in the military just not combat and in most cases- sometimes not at all.
So I would say I agree with you overall. I have not read this entire thread.
You are not a alone. That kind of shite is widespread.
Posted on 1/4/17 at 8:17 pm to Wolfhound45
Let's get an update on this in a year. The fact that they're CGOs should cover for a lot. It's our duty to wish them and the rest of the 1/8 well. Where's GT23's crazy arse?
Posted on 1/4/17 at 8:17 pm to MrCarton
They've made my case for me a dozen times in this thread and still refuse to look at the evidence and see the light. It's like they've been brainwashed over decades into believing that women being able to serve is sacrosanct.
Posted on 1/4/17 at 8:19 pm to MrCarton
Thanks
but it is a bit ridic to expect NO FEMALES in the military, aye?
I am pissy right now with tooth pain. Give me sumthin to PUNCH.
I am pissy right now with tooth pain. Give me sumthin to PUNCH.
Posted on 1/4/17 at 8:22 pm to Navytiger74
What in the frick? Is it realy the frick you? Do you know three people signed on and said hey sup punkin to me and I got excited (I don't know why)
and they got nuked faster than a blink of an eye.
If it is really you. I am not talking to you until you start an entire thread of you eatin humble and crow AND punkin pie-- mea culpaing to the fricking nine!
If it is really you. I am not talking to you until you start an entire thread of you eatin humble and crow AND punkin pie-- mea culpaing to the fricking nine!
Popular
Back to top


1





