View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently July 26th, 2014, 3:25 pm



Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
 The pussification of the military 
Author Message
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post The pussification of the military
I just heard that they're now gonna allow beards so not to offend certain religions. This after allowing gays into the military as a whole and allowing women into combat arms. Please tell me HOW this will make us a more effective fighting force. It won't.

On the bright side, their gas masks won't seal, so they'll die during a chemical attack.

When I was in during the 80's and early 90's, the standard was 42 pushups for men and 18 pushups for women. Why the difference? Don't we want EQUALITY?

Now, we have the Marine Corps standard of 3 pull ups. Unfortunately, 90% of women can't do more than one and that's discriminatory.

Are we attempting to achieve an effective fighting force or a politically correct social playground?

_________________
Image


January 22nd, 2014, 11:13 pm
Profile
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 2741
Post Re: The pussification of the military
slybri19 wrote:
I just heard that they're now gonna allow beards so not to offend certain religions. This after allowing gays into the military as a whole and allowing women into combat arms. Please tell me HOW this will make us a more effective fighting force. It won't.

On the bright side, their gas masks won't seal, so they'll die during a chemical attack.

When I was in during the 80's and early 90's, the standard was 42 pushups for men and 18 pushups for women. Why the difference? Don't we want EQUALITY?

Now, we have the Marine Corps standard of 3 pull ups. Unfortunately, 90% of women can't do more than one and that's discriminatory.

Are we attempting to achieve an effective fighting force or a politically correct social playground?


I don't disagree with any of this, but I think the pull ups depends on the standard of the pull up. Standard or perfect pull ups? If you can put your hands out anyway you want and it isn't the thicker bar, then it's ridiculous. I know when I took the SEAL test back in '95, it only required 8 perfect pulls ups. The bar was 8" around so they weren't easy. I ended up qualifying, but was failed when they misdiagnosed a hernia which led to my eventual discharge.

If they're using those standards, 3 is fair. If it's the easy ones everyone did in gym class, then yeah, it's lax.


January 23rd, 2014, 2:15 am
Profile
NFL Veteran

Joined: November 28th, 2007, 12:50 pm
Posts: 1332
Location: Newport Beach, Ca
Post Re: The pussification of the military
Can someone give me an explanation on how beards, gays, and women make the military a less effective fighting force? I don't understand how any of those things effect the fighting effectiveness of modern soldiers.


January 23rd, 2014, 11:59 am
Profile
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 2741
Post Re: The pussification of the military
Beards - working in the middle east and areas where chemical weapons have been known to be used, gas masks are a requirement. Beards make it impossible to get a perfect seal quickly along the chin/neck area. Even the orthodox jews in Israel are demanding beard-friendly gas masks to be made because of the threat of chemical attack from Syria. Sending troops into an area with that threat knowing they are a greater risk would be negligent.

Gays - this one is a debate and completely subjective. Plus it's an individual reaction, not something you can apply to every group. The reasoning is that you have to be a cohesive unit in combat. You have to rely on each other and some feel that it can cause a disruption which is a distraction and lower the effectiveness. You might have some squads that see no drop in effectiveness and you might see some that are completely ineffective. It comes down to the men in each platoon and how they adapt. It's an unknown and you try to control as many things as you can in combat. Throwing the unknown into the equation is a risk. Could it be a non factor years from now? Sure, but now is now.

Women isn't an issue. It's the lower physical requirements that is the issue. Do olympic women have to train less than men? By lowering the standards for as large a margin as they have, it does reduce the effectiveness of squads in combat. Much like above, you'll see some be fine and others be bad. Distractions and unknowns are not a good thing in the middle of a combat situation.

Do I think any of these is a major issue? No. But I think the timing and the frequency of things could be different. Lowering the standards gradually if needed instead of dropping the bar would have been more effective. I think women would surprise you in what they're capable of. Accepting lower standards means you'll get lower standards. I think the gay issue won't be as big a deal, if it isn't rushed or pushed on people. Regardless of beliefs, it is becoming more and more acceptable and future generations will not notice the difference. But right now, it's being made into a PR story and they're thrown into it which is another layer of distraction. The beards will hopefully force innovation before it costs the lives of soldiers who grow a full beard because they can.


January 23rd, 2014, 2:17 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9373
Location: Dallas
Post Re: The pussification of the military
A gay chick with a beard can still fly a drone, just sayin...

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


January 23rd, 2014, 2:31 pm
Profile WWW
NFL Veteran

Joined: November 28th, 2007, 12:50 pm
Posts: 1332
Location: Newport Beach, Ca
Post Re: The pussification of the military
njroar wrote:
Beards - working in the middle east and areas where chemical weapons have been known to be used, gas masks are a requirement. Beards make it impossible to get a perfect seal quickly along the chin/neck area. Even the orthodox jews in Israel are demanding beard-friendly gas masks to be made because of the threat of chemical attack from Syria. Sending troops into an area with that threat knowing they are a greater risk would be negligent.

Gays - this one is a debate and completely subjective. Plus it's an individual reaction, not something you can apply to every group. The reasoning is that you have to be a cohesive unit in combat. You have to rely on each other and some feel that it can cause a disruption which is a distraction and lower the effectiveness. You might have some squads that see no drop in effectiveness and you might see some that are completely ineffective. It comes down to the men in each platoon and how they adapt. It's an unknown and you try to control as many things as you can in combat. Throwing the unknown into the equation is a risk. Could it be a non factor years from now? Sure, but now is now.

Women isn't an issue. It's the lower physical requirements that is the issue. Do olympic women have to train less than men? By lowering the standards for as large a margin as they have, it does reduce the effectiveness of squads in combat. Much like above, you'll see some be fine and others be bad. Distractions and unknowns are not a good thing in the middle of a combat situation.

Do I think any of these is a major issue? No. But I think the timing and the frequency of things could be different. Lowering the standards gradually if needed instead of dropping the bar would have been more effective. I think women would surprise you in what they're capable of. Accepting lower standards means you'll get lower standards. I think the gay issue won't be as big a deal, if it isn't rushed or pushed on people. Regardless of beliefs, it is becoming more and more acceptable and future generations will not notice the difference. But right now, it's being made into a PR story and they're thrown into it which is another layer of distraction. The beards will hopefully force innovation before it costs the lives of soldiers who grow a full beard because they can.


Beards force innovation so that seems like a plus rather than a negative and like Pablo jokingly stated some people are better suited to other jobs. Nothing states these specific soldiers have to be deployed in places that would make them less effective.

I don't know about what changes have been made to the requirements and if anyone would like to enlighten me on it that would be great, but I don't see how just lowering the requirements on pull ups is an issue. There is more to a persons body and their ability to do their job than just physical strength.

As for Gays causing a disruption, that's nothing more than a cop out. If your soldiers are becoming less effective because a person on their squad is gay, I would question how effective they would be under any other type of adversity. These men or women are some how strong enough to work together when faced with the horrors of war, but the fact that one of their peers likes to have sex with the same sex is so sickening that they cannot work together as a unit to protect themselves. I find it hard to believe these soldiers would choose ostracizing a person in their group over self preservation in combat.


January 23rd, 2014, 3:05 pm
Profile
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 2741
Post Re: The pussification of the military
rao wrote:
njroar wrote:
Beards - working in the middle east and areas where chemical weapons have been known to be used, gas masks are a requirement. Beards make it impossible to get a perfect seal quickly along the chin/neck area. Even the orthodox jews in Israel are demanding beard-friendly gas masks to be made because of the threat of chemical attack from Syria. Sending troops into an area with that threat knowing they are a greater risk would be negligent.

Gays - this one is a debate and completely subjective. Plus it's an individual reaction, not something you can apply to every group. The reasoning is that you have to be a cohesive unit in combat. You have to rely on each other and some feel that it can cause a disruption which is a distraction and lower the effectiveness. You might have some squads that see no drop in effectiveness and you might see some that are completely ineffective. It comes down to the men in each platoon and how they adapt. It's an unknown and you try to control as many things as you can in combat. Throwing the unknown into the equation is a risk. Could it be a non factor years from now? Sure, but now is now.

Women isn't an issue. It's the lower physical requirements that is the issue. Do olympic women have to train less than men? By lowering the standards for as large a margin as they have, it does reduce the effectiveness of squads in combat. Much like above, you'll see some be fine and others be bad. Distractions and unknowns are not a good thing in the middle of a combat situation.

Do I think any of these is a major issue? No. But I think the timing and the frequency of things could be different. Lowering the standards gradually if needed instead of dropping the bar would have been more effective. I think women would surprise you in what they're capable of. Accepting lower standards means you'll get lower standards. I think the gay issue won't be as big a deal, if it isn't rushed or pushed on people. Regardless of beliefs, it is becoming more and more acceptable and future generations will not notice the difference. But right now, it's being made into a PR story and they're thrown into it which is another layer of distraction. The beards will hopefully force innovation before it costs the lives of soldiers who grow a full beard because they can.


Beards force innovation so that seems like a plus rather than a negative and like Pablo jokingly stated some people are better suited to other jobs. Nothing states these specific soldiers have to be deployed in places that would make them less effective.

I don't know about what changes have been made to the requirements and if anyone would like to enlighten me on it that would be great, but I don't see how just lowering the requirements on pull ups is an issue. There is more to a persons body and their ability to do their job than just physical strength.

As for Gays causing a disruption, that's nothing more than a cop out. If your soldiers are becoming less effective because a person on their squad is gay, I would question how effective they would be under any other type of adversity. These men or women are some how strong enough to work together when faced with the horrors of war, but the fact that one of their peers likes to have sex with the same sex is so sickening that they cannot work together as a unit to protect themselves. I find it hard to believe these soldiers would choose ostracizing a person in their group over self preservation in combat.


They haven't forced innovation in hundreds of years, but now it's going to? Beards aren't new. And the beards aren't limited to specific jobs. You don't pick and choose who from a squad gets deployed where. The entire battalion goes together.

The physical conditioning is what builds the mental strength for combat. Go through a boot camp and you'll understand.

Being in combat is about trust. You can say it's a copout, but trust is something you can't see or touch. It's something that people feel. Much like a doctor can't tell you that you don't have a stomach ache. And it's not just the soldiers ostracizing one person, it's that one person not trusting everyone else. What if he's the one that has a specific duty and doesn't do it because he's scared he won't get the cover he needs? It's a group effort and yes one person out of whack can effect the entire group. Stress in combat is going to happen. Everyone always focuses on the straight soldiers reactions to homosexuals, but how about that homosexual that has lived in secret his whole life and might still have fear of how he's perceived or thought of? It's not as simple as saying discrimination will cause troubles in the military, it's the fear of discrimination can be just as distracting and a problem. Will it eventually not be an issue? I can definitely see it. But it's been moving so fast, there are things to take into consideration that won't happen overnight.

lol Pablo. If we went to a full drone military, I'd agree with you. But there will always be boots on the ground.


January 23rd, 2014, 3:21 pm
Profile
NFL Veteran

Joined: November 28th, 2007, 12:50 pm
Posts: 1332
Location: Newport Beach, Ca
Post Re: The pussification of the military
njroar wrote:
rao wrote:
njroar wrote:
Beards - working in the middle east and areas where chemical weapons have been known to be used, gas masks are a requirement. Beards make it impossible to get a perfect seal quickly along the chin/neck area. Even the orthodox jews in Israel are demanding beard-friendly gas masks to be made because of the threat of chemical attack from Syria. Sending troops into an area with that threat knowing they are a greater risk would be negligent.

Gays - this one is a debate and completely subjective. Plus it's an individual reaction, not something you can apply to every group. The reasoning is that you have to be a cohesive unit in combat. You have to rely on each other and some feel that it can cause a disruption which is a distraction and lower the effectiveness. You might have some squads that see no drop in effectiveness and you might see some that are completely ineffective. It comes down to the men in each platoon and how they adapt. It's an unknown and you try to control as many things as you can in combat. Throwing the unknown into the equation is a risk. Could it be a non factor years from now? Sure, but now is now.

Women isn't an issue. It's the lower physical requirements that is the issue. Do olympic women have to train less than men? By lowering the standards for as large a margin as they have, it does reduce the effectiveness of squads in combat. Much like above, you'll see some be fine and others be bad. Distractions and unknowns are not a good thing in the middle of a combat situation.

Do I think any of these is a major issue? No. But I think the timing and the frequency of things could be different. Lowering the standards gradually if needed instead of dropping the bar would have been more effective. I think women would surprise you in what they're capable of. Accepting lower standards means you'll get lower standards. I think the gay issue won't be as big a deal, if it isn't rushed or pushed on people. Regardless of beliefs, it is becoming more and more acceptable and future generations will not notice the difference. But right now, it's being made into a PR story and they're thrown into it which is another layer of distraction. The beards will hopefully force innovation before it costs the lives of soldiers who grow a full beard because they can.


Beards force innovation so that seems like a plus rather than a negative and like Pablo jokingly stated some people are better suited to other jobs. Nothing states these specific soldiers have to be deployed in places that would make them less effective.

I don't know about what changes have been made to the requirements and if anyone would like to enlighten me on it that would be great, but I don't see how just lowering the requirements on pull ups is an issue. There is more to a persons body and their ability to do their job than just physical strength.

As for Gays causing a disruption, that's nothing more than a cop out. If your soldiers are becoming less effective because a person on their squad is gay, I would question how effective they would be under any other type of adversity. These men or women are some how strong enough to work together when faced with the horrors of war, but the fact that one of their peers likes to have sex with the same sex is so sickening that they cannot work together as a unit to protect themselves. I find it hard to believe these soldiers would choose ostracizing a person in their group over self preservation in combat.


They haven't forced innovation in hundreds of years, but now it's going to? Beards aren't new. And the beards aren't limited to specific jobs. You don't pick and choose who from a squad gets deployed where. The entire battalion goes together.

The physical conditioning is what builds the mental strength for combat. Go through a boot camp and you'll understand.

Being in combat is about trust. You can say it's a copout, but trust is something you can't see or touch. It's something that people feel. Much like a doctor can't tell you that you don't have a stomach ache. And it's not just the soldiers ostracizing one person, it's that one person not trusting everyone else. What if he's the one that has a specific duty and doesn't do it because he's scared he won't get the cover he needs? It's a group effort and yes one person out of whack can effect the entire group. Stress in combat is going to happen. Everyone always focuses on the straight soldiers reactions to homosexuals, but how about that homosexual that has lived in secret his whole life and might still have fear of how he's perceived or thought of? It's not as simple as saying discrimination will cause troubles in the military, it's the fear of discrimination can be just as distracting and a problem. Will it eventually not be an issue? I can definitely see it. But it's been moving so fast, there are things to take into consideration that won't happen overnight.

lol Pablo. If we went to a full drone military, I'd agree with you. But there will always be boots on the ground.


Beards are new to the US military who loves to throw money at new toys. I'm sure their is some contractor somewhere just waiting for the sweet government deal to make some new masks for the whole military when they are only needed for a select few.

Physical conditioning is also more than just how many times you can lift your own body weight. I understand to want to push people to make them mentally tougher but there is always more than one way to do that.

Racial minorities had to go through the same thing already and it seemed to have worked out without the entire military falling apart. A homosexual person doesn't even need to talk about it, so if they are that worried about I would doubt they would even tell anyone or join the military in the first place. There is no guarantee that a group of straight people will be able to work or trust each other either.


January 23rd, 2014, 3:43 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 8 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.