Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

Fortress America: One in every six US soldiers is a woman,


  • Please log in to reply
91 replies to this topic

#41 Shura

Shura

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 25707 posts

Posted 31 December 2015 - 02:28 AM

About half of man of military age in US are not fit to be women.


  • 0

#42 Zharkov

Zharkov

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 32995 posts

Posted 05 January 2016 - 02:04 AM

 

New Clues Why Women Get Broken-Heart Syndrome

Harmony Reynolds, a cardiologist at NYU Langone Medical Center, recently led a study that subjected 20 women to a host of tests designed to bring on physical and mental stress.

The study looked for possible reasons some of the women had suffered a mysterious ailment known as broken-heart syndrome, which mimics a heart attack but generally doesn’t appear to be due to coronary artery disease.

In seeking a common thread among the 10 women in the group who had experienced an attack of broken-heart syndrome over the past several years, Dr. Reynolds and colleagues came to suspect they each suffered from an impaired parasympathetic nervous system, the part of the nervous system responsible for helping the body calm down.

The study led to strikingly different conclusions from what other researchers had previously believed might be behind the unusual malady. It also led Dr. Reynolds to believe that breathing and other relaxation techniques such as yoga and meditation should be tested for preventing broken-heart syndrome.

There were 6,230 cases of people in the U.S. hospitalized with broken-heart syndrome in 2012, according to a recent study. Patients usually heal within days or weeks without residual damage to the heart. But complications can occur, as well as fatalities.

Broken-heart syndrome was first isolated by Japanese researchers 25 years ago, who named the condition takotsubo cardiomyopathy. Takotsubo is a Japanese term which means octopus trap, a reference to the ballooning shape of the heart during an attack.

For years, researchers believed takotsubo was linked to the nervous system, specifically that portion known as the sympathetic nervous system, which at times of stress produces a flow of adrenaline that can overwhelm the heart. Doctors often prescribed beta blockers, a type of medication that works on the sympathetic nervous system to control adrenaline and other hormones.

http://www.wsj.com/a...rome-1451932640


Edited by Zharkov, 05 January 2016 - 02:55 PM.

  • 0

#43 Higgins

Higgins

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 418 posts

Posted 24 January 2016 - 08:21 AM

Zharkov



I am certainly no fan of the guy, and it has proven to be a big disappointment to me over the years, but I really don't think everything that is wrong in the US, including the lack of morale in the armed forced, can be attributed to Obama.
The guy is just passing through, like any other president, and he cannot be accused of all the ills of the country, although I understand fully well, that finding a scapegoat to blame suits some people.

It's really tiring to hear all the time"this is because of Obama", or "obama did this, Obama did that".
Not only it looks like cheap propaganda, but it doesn't even scratch the problem.

Lack of equipment and uniform in the armed forces? Blame Obama.
Women in the armed forces? Blame Obama.
Budget deficit? Blame Obama.

Well, many of these ills started well before Obama came in power. Many decisions were taken well before he arrived in the White House, etc...
I think that the reflex of immediatly blaming the head of state when something goes wrong is just unrealistic.

Again, I am not supporting Obama, but the same would have been said against McCain, or Mitt Romney had they been elected.
People just like someone to blame.

In fact, in spite of the huge power he inherit, a US president cannot change everything at the stoke of a pen, not steer the country on a different course without consensus.
Obama came to power with the country having a massive budget deficit, MASSIVE is hardly the word for it, it's absolutely colossal, so some savings or trimming was to be expected in many departments, including defense.

We will see if Trump will make America better; for my part, I doubt it.
  • 0

#44 Higgins

Higgins

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 418 posts

Posted 24 January 2016 - 08:36 AM

eii3.jpg
 
She's Not Built For The Job



You have a very misogynistic view of the world, I must say, if you only see the contribution of women as a burden to men.

Bill Clinton was right to open the armed forced to women, from top to bottom.

That was overdue; other countries have women in their armed forces for decades, and are better for it.

In fact, to reflect the men/women ratio in society, it's not 1 of every 6 soldiers that should be a woman, but 3 out of 6!

Anything that promotes the role of women in society is to be welcome, and no bastion should be "male only"..

With warfare increasingly becoming the realm of technology, women are even more needed than ever.

Other thing; lesbisns, gays, bisexuals and trangenders should also be welcome and accepted in the armed forces.

If some males have a problem with that, just to bad.

Machism is so out of fashion in the modern world.
  • 0

#45 Zharkov

Zharkov

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 32995 posts

Posted 24 January 2016 - 04:40 PM

One of the few areas of sole responsibility for a president is the armed forces.   Obama has exclusive control over them and he alone is responsible for their morale.    If you knew that Obama made his soldiers wear women's shoes or women's underwear, you might suspect that he is trying to degrade their morale and you would be right.   And that is exactly what he had done.

 

As the above articles indicate, women are not psychologically fit for war, they have real problems remaining calm under fire, and they are not physically built for combat.    There is every reason to suspect that a combat mission comprised exclusively of women would fail, and that seems to be the plan.   If one wants to lose a war, mixing women, transgenders, and men together in combat is a sure way to lose.

 

The military is not "society" and are not suitable for social experimentation because their only job is to kill and destroy, and that is not something women are able to fully understand.     The military is unlike anything else in the civilized world, it is a rigid structure designed to efficiently kill everything that opposes it.   The military is a machine-like organization.   If you have seen the difference between women drivers and men drivers of automobiles, you begin to understand that the military machine operates on a different level.   There is no tolerance for failure.   There can be no mistakes or the wrong people die.   Combat places immense pressure on every soldier from general to private and women mostly cannot handle that kind of pressure.    They fall apart.   They become confused, issueing contradictory commands, and they break down when everything goes wrong.    Men do too, but it takes a lot more for them than for a woman.   Women have hormonal differences.   If they didn't, they would be men.


Edited by Zharkov, 24 January 2016 - 04:48 PM.

  • 0

#46 Higgins

Higgins

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 418 posts

Posted 25 January 2016 - 09:43 AM

One of the few areas of sole responsibility for a president is the armed forces.   Obama has exclusive control over them and he alone is responsible for their morale.    If you knew that Obama made his soldiers wear women's shoes or women's underwear, you might suspect that he is trying to degrade their morale and you would be right.   And that is exactly what he had done.

 

As the above articles indicate, women are not psychologically fit for war, they have real problems remaining calm under fire, and they are not physically built for combat.    There is every reason to suspect that a combat mission comprised exclusively of women would fail, and that seems to be the plan.   If one wants to lose a war, mixing women, transgenders, and men together in combat is a sure way to lose.

 

The military is not "society" and are not suitable for social experimentation because their only job is to kill and destroy, and that is not something women are able to fully understand.     The military is unlike anything else in the civilized world, it is a rigid structure designed to efficiently kill everything that opposes it.   The military is a machine-like organization.   If you have seen the difference between women drivers and men drivers of automobiles, you begin to understand that the military machine operates on a different level.   There is no tolerance for failure.   There can be no mistakes or the wrong people die.   Combat places immense pressure on every soldier from general to private and women mostly cannot handle that kind of pressure.    They fall apart.   They become confused, issueing contradictory commands, and they break down when everything goes wrong.    Men do too, but it takes a lot more for them than for a woman.   Women have hormonal differences.   If they didn't, they would be men.

 

 

A very macho opinion, I would say.

 

Women do very well in some armies, even in combat situations.


  • 0

#47 Zharkov

Zharkov

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 32995 posts

Posted 26 January 2016 - 07:29 AM

 

 

A very macho opinion, I would say.

 

Women do very well in some armies, even in combat situations.

 

No, it is a very military opinion.  

 

Of course you would not agree because you were never in the US military service.  

 

You have no military mind.   

 

Military leaders agree with the article below.   I find the idea of women in combat a sickening thought.   They will get good men killed.   There are already examples of women becoming helpless in actual combat and needing a squad of men to divert from their mission to rescue her.    It only has to happen once to prove that point.

 

If you want your country to lose the next war, fill its combat forces with women.

 

 

ArmyObamaGov.jpg
American hero: Obama's military a 'girly man outfit'

'Going up against an all-male squad with your squad half females?'

One of America’s greatest heroes is charging the commander in chief with deliberate sabotage of the nation’s armed forces.

The serious accusation leveled against Barack Obama comes from retired Army Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, a recipient of the Medal of Honor, who told WND bluntly, “Obama loathes the military.”

“His goal is to reduce the military to impotence,” Brady said in an interview. “That way, during his reign, which, thank God, is almost over, he could point to an emasculated military and say he didn’t have the capability to [do] anything about it. If it came to a confrontation, I don’t think he would fight.”

Brady explained Obama “changed the ethos of the military” by lowering standards and moral values. He specifically identified the removal of the bans on open homosexuality and women in combat positions as destructive.

“It’s gone from a masculine-oriented outfit to a girly man kind of an outfit,” Brady said.

Brady, who was a legendary “Dust Off” air ambulance pilot in Vietnam and detailed his experiences in his book, “Dead Men Flying,” argued political correctness is endangering American security, creating a weaker, less versatile force.

The general argued women serving in combat is problematic simply because of the physical differences between the two sexes.

“I have commanded female students in peacetime in medical units,” said Brady. “I am aware of the demands on males made on the battlefield, moving bodies on the battlefield, using litters, even in terms of carrying a toolbox, which is heavy.”

Brady suggested most women are simply less capable of meeting such physical demands in a combat situation. He also told WND he heard from “several sources” the women who recently graduated Army Ranger School “had a lot of help.”

As reported in September, high-ranking officials in the Army “planned in advance” the results of training programs designed to see if women could meet the physical standards.

Brady laid out a chilling hypothetical example for soldiers and their family members.

“The bottom line is this: If you’ve got a squad in the hills of Afghanistan and your squad is half female, half male and you’re going up against a Muslim terrorist squad from ISIS that’s all male, do you want your daughter in that squad? Your mother? Your wife? Going up against an all-male squad with your squad half females? I don’t think so.”

He said, “It violates every tenet of common sense to put women in foxholes. Not to mention everything it does to morale, camaraderie and bonding. It will certainly cause divisiveness.”

Brady also condemned homosexuality in the American military on grounds of both health and morality. The former air rescue pilot explained each soldier is considered a “walking blood bank” in a medical emergency, but homosexual men for years have been banned from donating blood because of concerns about disease.

They still are banned under some circumstances.

Brady also charged the inclusion of homosexual soldiers creates a chilling effect, as soldiers who disagree with what they see as sexual immorality must “tip toe around for fear of saying the wrong thing” and facing punishment.

Finally, Brady spoke out against what he sees as an attempt by President Obama to silence officers perceived as hostile. He specifically called the attempt to demote Gen. David Petraeus even after his retirement as “disturbing.”

http://www.wnd.com/2...rly-man-outfit/


  • 0

#48 Zharkov

Zharkov

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 32995 posts

Posted 26 January 2016 - 07:35 AM

The White House Faggot-In-Chief isn't going to convince any real American military leader that placing women in combat is a wonderful idea.   It may be acceptable for some Asian militaries, but America is not Asian.   We don't have an overpopulation problem.


  • 0

#49 Higgins

Higgins

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 418 posts

Posted 26 January 2016 - 07:43 PM

 


You have no military mind.   

 

 

 

If you want your country to lose the next war, fill its combat forces with women.

 

 

 

You are right, I have no military mind: I am a pacifist.

 

I hope my country never goes to war again.

 

If it does, I wouldn't fight for it.

 

Wars are just expedients for incompetent politicians.

 

The wars my forefathers fought never solved anything; in fact, they created all the problems we inherit now.


Edited by Higgins, 26 January 2016 - 07:46 PM.

  • 0

#50 Zharkov

Zharkov

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 32995 posts

Posted 26 January 2016 - 10:28 PM

Women are not psychologically adapted for combat in addition to being physically inferior in body strength compared with men.

 

                                                                  4d9d764188e593ad8653e43b2dd8d1cedbd53b12

Why Are There Gender Differences in Depression?

Women are more likely to be diagnosed with depression than men. This is true across many nations and is independent of race, ethnicity, or social class.

 

Prior to puberty, rates of major depressive disorder are approximately equal in boys and girls. With increasing age, the female rate begins to increase compared to the male rate, so that by adulthood, women with depression outnumber men with depression by a factor of two to one.

While the ratio between males and females varies somewhat from one country to the next, Ustun et al. (2004) found no part of the world where men and women experienced depression at the same rate or where men with depression outnumbered women with depression. These researchers and others, including Strickland (1992), have reported that the gender difference in depression occurs even when the scientists control for race, ethnicity, and social class.

One problem with prevalence data, however, is that the number of people who seek help with depression might not be the same as the number of people who meet diagnostic criteria. People might fear the stigma associated with having a psychological disorder, or resources for obtaining a diagnosis and treatment may be unavailable or unaffordable.

It is possible that women may feel more comfortable seeking help for depression than men, or that male depression is masked by other problem behaviors, such as alcohol.

While these possibilities are logical, most psychologists believe that the gender difference in major depressive disorder is "real." What possible reasons might there be for a greater vulnerability of women for depression?

Hormones and Depression

Mood disturbances of several kinds are related to hormonal fluctuations in women, which leads to the hypothesis that the observed gender differences are due to some hormonal mechanism.

One clue pointing in this direction is the timing of the gender differences. As mentioned above, rates of depression in boys and girls are about the same prior to puberty. Following puberty, the rates diverge, and the gender difference approaches adult proportions by the end of the teen years.

In addition, other mood disturbances are observed in conjunction with hormonal changes in women. As women recover pre-pregnancy hormonal levels following the birth of a child, many experience postpartum depression. Other women complain of mood fluctuations correlating with hormonal changes during the process of menopause (Rapkin et al., 2002).

 

http://www.answers.c...s-in-depression

  • 0

#51 Zharkov

Zharkov

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 32995 posts

Posted 26 January 2016 - 10:34 PM

 

 

You are right, I have no military mind: I am a pacifist.

 

I hope my country never goes to war again.

 

If it does, I wouldn't fight for it.

 

Wars are just expedients for incompetent politicians.

 

The wars my forefathers fought never solved anything; in fact, they created all the problems we inherit now.

You still have a country to live in because somebody in the past was willing to fight invaders to keep it.

 

In ancient times, when invaders won battles, not only were armies slaughtered but entire towns were slaughtered by the invading enemy.    This is still true today with those who fight for ISIS.   If nuclear war ever occurs, it will be true again because nukes have lasting effects for decades.   Countries are better defended by men who accept the risks of battle, not by women who cannot even imagine the horror and pain they will be asked to endure.    The idea of using women in combat has only one motivation and that is to reduce the world's population.

 

One may ask, what's wrong with eliminating the world's population?    For one thing, wars kill the most courageous people in the population, the very ones who could have built big businesses, discovered new technologies, created new ways to handle problems, etc.    Many are the best and brightest people in the country, the risk takers who made civilization work.    Killing them off creates a reverse Darwin effect, leaving the risk avoiders, the least courageous, the timid souls who comply with tyranny rather than protest or fight it.   

 

There is something evil about wanting to remove the earth's population by selling them alcohol and tobacco, poisoning their food with genetic experimentation on crops, poisoning their water with fluoride and halogen chemicals, destroying their soil with chemtrail fallout and nuclear fallout, and blasting everyone with microwave radiation from cell phone towers and radar installations.   All of these things kill as many people as war would do, only slower.   We have a soft-kill world today.   Some are aware of it, most are not.   We are already at war with some of our corporate leaders and our governments.    Whether we like it or not, they have conducted war against humanity.   As the lead poisoning of Flint, Michigan demonstrates, governments see us as expendable.

 

 

We need men in the military who will not blindly follow orders to wipe populations off the earth.    Men willing to take the risk of not obeying orders to imprision their own fellow citizens.   It seems few women could handle that job.   Fewer women would willingly trade security for liberty.   Very few women would even believe that would be their choice, and almost none would disobey a direct order from higher authority, where a man would feel obligated to do so if that order was illegal.

 

The argument that women belong in military combat simply does not convince a military mind.    An army of women would be sacrificial lambs sent to the slaughter and the military mind knows it.


Edited by Zharkov, 26 January 2016 - 10:55 PM.

  • 0

#52 Higgins

Higgins

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 418 posts

Posted 26 January 2016 - 11:22 PM

You still have a country to live in because somebody in the past was willing to fight invaders to keep it.

 

 

Not al all.

 

My country, Great Britain, was successively invaded by the Romans, the Vikings, the Anglo-Saxons, the Normans who each brought new culture, new technology, new language, new gene pool to make it what it is now.

 

In modern time, French, Germans, Poles, Somalians, Indians, Pakistanis, Chinese, Africans, Arabs, and many Commonwealth citizen have also moved to Great Britain to make it a truly multicultural society, where diversity flourishes.

 

I do not see foreigners coming to settle in my country as invaders, but as contributing to its developement. I welcome them.

Of course, I expect them to respect our country, and when they fail I expect them to be educated.

After 1 or 2 generations, most people of foreign background are assimilated in our society, and contribute to it.


  • 0

#53 Zharkov

Zharkov

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 32995 posts

Posted 27 January 2016 - 04:29 PM

 

Not al all.

 

My country, Great Britain, was successively invaded by the Romans, the Vikings, the Anglo-Saxons, the Normans who each brought new culture, new technology, new language, new gene pool to make it what it is now.

 

In modern time, French, Germans, Poles, Somalians, Indians, Pakistanis, Chinese, Africans, Arabs, and many Commonwealth citizen have also moved to Great Britain to make it a truly multicultural society, where diversity flourishes.

 

I do not see foreigners coming to settle in my country as invaders, but as contributing to its developement. I welcome them.

Of course, I expect them to respect our country, and when they fail I expect them to be educated.

After 1 or 2 generations, most people of foreign background are assimilated in our society, and contribute to it.

British islanders fought invaders for centuries.  

They were not "welcomed" by the population, many of whom died trying to kill their new immigrants.

 

It appears that "Britain" now consists of Buckingham Palace and little else.  

The rest of that conquered country is a police state under constant surveillance and police control.

It is reportedly illegal to criticize immigrants, defend one's home against their crimes, or do anything to irritate them.

Britain no longer exists beyond the palace gate.

 

As expected, Britain was defended by a woman - Elizabeth.   

 

As I said, if you want to lose your country, send a women to fight for it.


  • 0

#54 Higgins

Higgins

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 418 posts

Posted 27 January 2016 - 06:03 PM

British islanders fought invaders for centuries.  

They were not "welcomed" by the population, many of whom died trying to kill their new immigrants.

 

It appears that "Britain" now consists of Buckingham Palace and little else.  

The rest of that conquered country is a police state under constant surveillance and police control.

It is reportedly illegal to criticize immigrants, defend one's home against their crimes, or do anything to irritate them.

Britain no longer exists beyond the palace gate.

 

As expected, Britain was defended by a woman - Elizabeth.   

 

As I said, if you want to lose your country, send a women to fight for it.

 

Well, if the Brits fought invaders, they didn't do a very good job of it. Even our royal family is German !

 

As for the rest, don't believe Donald trump propaganda. It's not perfect, but we are doing alright.


  • 0

#55 Shura

Shura

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 25707 posts

Posted 27 January 2016 - 11:43 PM

 

Well, if the Brits fought invaders, they didn't do a very good job of it. Even our royal family is German !

 

As for the rest, don't believe Donald trump propaganda. It's not perfect, but we are doing alright.

YEAH SURE YOU ARE DEFENDED BY ZIONISTS AND RULED BY PEDERASTIES JUST LIKE JEWSA IS


  • 0

#56 Higgins

Higgins

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 418 posts

Posted 28 January 2016 - 10:03 PM

Shura

 

 

As a matter of interest, where are you from?

 

Once you said you were an American Muslim.


  • 0

#57 Higgins

Higgins

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 418 posts

Posted 28 January 2016 - 10:05 PM

Shura

 

 

Britain doesn't need to be defended, IMO; it's not under attack.

 

Our armed forces and our police are diverse: multi cultural, multi gender.

 

It's quite cool really ....


  • 0

#58 Zharkov

Zharkov

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 32995 posts

Posted 29 January 2016 - 12:39 AM

obama-rome-burning.jpg

"It's not perfect and he's doing nothing right"


Edited by Zharkov, 22 February 2016 - 06:30 AM.

  • 0

#59 Zharkov

Zharkov

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 32995 posts

Posted 22 February 2016 - 06:29 AM

An expert on military preparedness says the United States armed forces could topple like a Jenga block tower if President Obama’s social agenda is allowed to continue.

“If the Obama administration continues to remove resources from the Jenga block tower’s base, while loading burdens of social engineering on the top, the structure will become increasingly unstable and eventually fall,” contends a new report from the Center for Military Readiness, referring to the block-stacking game.

CMR is run by Elaine Donnelly, who was appointed by Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger to the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services. Later, President George H.W. Bush appointed her to the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces.

She also the author of “Constructing the Co-Ed Military” and wrote a chapter called “Defending the Culture of the Military,” published by the Air Force University Press in 2010 in the book “Attitudes Are Not Free – Thinking Deeply About Diversity in the U.S. Armed Forces.”

She has written often about the problems in the military resulting from Obama’s promotion of homosexual and transgender rights, and other social issues, including women in front-line combat operations.

She compares the social engineering to a Jenga block game, in which wooden blocks are piled up and lower blocks removed one at a time until the tower falls.

Obama’s social agenda is the top blocks, but troop strength and support are the foundation blocks that are being removed, she has argued.

“Our military is the best in the world, but its strength and integrity cannot be taken for granted,” she said in the CMR report. “It will be the responsibility of the next commander-in-chief to maintain and strengthen our military by restoring necessary resources and removing heavy burdens caused by social experiments.”

Her report notes the issue is assuming greater importance in light of a recent Washington Times article that highlights the consequences of budget cuts in Special Operations Forces.

The article points out that Special Forces are not ready to integrate women into tip-of-spear fighting units, as the White House has insisted.

CMR has been collecting responses from presidential candidates on their position regarding the military, the social agenda Obama has been pursuing, troop readiness and other issues.

“CMR does not endorse candidates, but we will continue to seek responses from Republicans who have not answered yet: Donald J. Trump, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, John Kasich, and Dr. Ben Carson,” the report said.

“Questions and concerns about military/social issues matter because a relentless combination of budget cuts and burdens of political correctness are eroding the strength of the all-volunteer force,” the report said.

The report listed a variety of opinions regarding the issues, including from a writer in the New York Post who chastised Republicans for failing to “scream at the lunacy of drafting women.”

A National Review Online op-ed declared: “Only a barbaric nation drafts its mothers and daughters Into combat.”

WND reported a survey of presidential candidates by the Center for Military Readiness that found troops wouldn’t “get much help from former Sen. Hillary Clinton, Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, or other Democratic candidates who are on record in support of liberal policies that are doing great harm.”

Among Republicans, the report noted that only Sen. Rick Santorum had responded right away. He said he would exempt women from direct ground combat and believes the military is no place for “social experimentation” by LGBT activists.

“No place should the right to free exercise of religion be more welcomed and encouraged than in our nation’s military. Attempts to infringe or discriminate against faith-based beliefs cannot be tolerated,” he said.

But he’s since dropped out of the race.

Sen. Ted Cruz’s response followed, and he said would review Obama’s social engineering policies, continue to exempt women from the draft and direct combat front lines, keep LGBT activism out of the ranks and support religious liberty.

“The Marine Corps request [for exemption to mandatory women-in-combat roles] must be reconsidered.” Cruz said. “As long as the requirements are fair and universally applied, the military must always place the best person for the job at hand, whether male or female, but we cannot let political correctness compel the military to lower its standards.”

Others candidates have made unsatisfactory public statements on the issue, said Donnelly.

“Presidential candidates Sen. Marco Rubio, Gov. Jeb Bush, and Gov. Chris Christie provided unserious, politically correct answers to questions about Selective Service – a national security issue of critical importance to military personnel and unsuspecting young civilian women,” said Donnelly.

During the Feb. 6 Republican presidential debate in Manchester, New Hampshire, ABC moderator Martha Raddatz asked Rubio and Bush whether they favored registration of women for Selective Service.

“Gov. Chris Christie gratuitously jumped in with comments that appeared to agree with the other candidates’ support for registering women,” Donnelly reported. “Sen. Ted Cruz was not asked to respond to the same question, but in a post-debate speech, Cruz issued a strong challenge to the position of the other three on Selective Service.”

Donnelly said exit polls “did not explore the reaction with New Hampshire voters, but the narrow finish of Rubio, Bush, and Christie behind Sen. Ted Cruz, who challenged their position as ‘nuts’ in a post-debate speech, apparently shows that these three were not helped, Cruz not hurt, by taking their respective positions on the Selective Service issue.”

“In providing answers to six questions on the 2016 Quadrennial Center for Military Readiness Presidential Candidate Survey, which began on January 4, Sen. Cruz affirmed that he supports the all-volunteer force and opposes efforts to impose Selective Service obligations on women.”

The survey asks for views on “Obama-era social experimentation; e.g., women in direct ground (infantry) combat, religious liberty, and LGBT events promoting transgenders in the military,” she explained.

Those are military-social issues that impact active-duty personnel all the time.

Cruz’s response to his rivals’ stances on women in the draft was a succinct, “Are you guys nuts?”

He called political correctness in the military “dangerous” and said, “The idea that we would draft our daughters to forcibly bring them into the military and put them in close combat, I think is wrong, it is immoral, and if I am president, we ain’t doing it.”

At the New Hampshire event, Rubio said there are women already “in roles that are like combat.”

“I have no problem whatsoever with people of either gender serving in combat so long as the minimum requirements necessary to do the job are not compromised.”

Noted the CMR report: “For starters, Sen. Rubio seems unaware that being ‘in harm’s way’ in a war zone, where women have indeed served with courage, does not fit the definition of being in direct ground (infantry) combat. The latter experience is properly defined as ‘seeking out and attacking the enemy with deliberate offensive action.'”

At the same venue, Bush said, regarding drafting women: “I do [support registration], and I do think that we should not impose any kind of political agenda on the military. There should be – if women can meet the requirements, the minimum requirements for combat service they ought to have the right to do it.”

“Bush … seems unaware that in addition to disregarding the Marine Corps’ request for exceptions to across-the board women-in-land-combat mandates, orders to repeal women’s direct ground combat exemptions, triggering likely obligations to register for [Selective Service] are the most extreme ‘political agenda’ that the Obama administration has imposed,” the CMR report said.

The CMR survey said the next commander in chief “must take the lead, starting with orders to all appointees and military officials to provide complete and candid information on what has been done to our military during eight years of social experimentation under the Obama administration.”

Last year, Heritage Foundation national security and foreign policy expert James Carafano spelled out the impact of the Obama administration’s policies on the military, with the Army’s manpower down 10 percent, “aging” naval capabilities, “the smallest and oldest” force of combat aircraft in its history and the Marines “running only about two-thirds the number of battalions they have historically needed to meet day-to-day operational demands.”

http://www.wnd.com/2...?cat_orig=world


  • 0

#60 Shura

Shura

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 25707 posts

Posted 22 February 2016 - 08:35 PM

You still have a country to live in because somebody in the past was willing to fight invaders to keep it.

 

In ancient times, when invaders won battles, not only were armies slaughtered but entire towns were slaughtered by the invading enemy.    This is still true today with those who fight for ISIS.   If nuclear war ever occurs, it will be true again because nukes have lasting effects for decades.   Countries are better defended by men who accept the risks of battle, not by women who cannot even imagine the horror and pain they will be asked to endure.    The idea of using women in combat has only one motivation and that is to reduce the world's population.

 

One may ask, what's wrong with eliminating the world's population?    For one thing, wars kill the most courageous people in the population, the very ones who could have built big businesses, discovered new technologies, created new ways to handle problems, etc.    Many are the best and brightest people in the country, the risk takers who made civilization work.    Killing them off creates a reverse Darwin effect, leaving the risk avoiders, the least courageous, the timid souls who comply with tyranny rather than protest or fight it.   

 

There is something evil about wanting to remove the earth's population by selling them alcohol and tobacco, poisoning their food with genetic experimentation on crops, poisoning their water with fluoride and halogen chemicals, destroying their soil with chemtrail fallout and nuclear fallout, and blasting everyone with microwave radiation from cell phone towers and radar installations.   All of these things kill as many people as war would do, only slower.   We have a soft-kill world today.   Some are aware of it, most are not.   We are already at war with some of our corporate leaders and our governments.    Whether we like it or not, they have conducted war against humanity.   As the lead poisoning of Flint, Michigan demonstrates, governments see us as expendable.

 

 

We need men in the military who will not blindly follow orders to wipe populations off the earth.    Men willing to take the risk of not obeying orders to imprision their own fellow citizens.   It seems few women could handle that job.   Fewer women would willingly trade security for liberty.   Very few women would even believe that would be their choice, and almost none would disobey a direct order from higher authority, where a man would feel obligated to do so if that order was illegal.

 

The argument that women belong in military combat simply does not convince a military mind.    An army of women would be sacrificial lambs sent to the slaughter and the military mind knows it.

Bunch of bullcrap! Those that "fought" for America scalped 100 million Indians in the process. What are you blabbering about? When was USA ever attacked by anyone from outside, besides te Pearl Harbour fiasco. TELL ME WHEN? All US "fighting" has been done to occupy other people's land and subjugate others. Just like it is being done right now in half a dozen countries. What the heck does Honduras have against America?  for US to send Blackwater to kill Hondurans?


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2017 Pravda.Ru