CNN: Military to open combat jobs to women
By Chris Lawrence, with reporting from Barbara Starr
[Updated at 9:30 p.m. ET] The U.S. military is ending its policy of excluding women from combat and will open combat jobs and direct combat units to female troops, multiple officials told CNN on Wednesday.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta will make the announcement Thursday and notify Congress of the planned change in policy, the officials said.
“We will eliminate the policy of ‘no women in units that are tasked with direct combat,’” a senior defense official said.
The officials cautioned, however, that “not every position will open all at once on Thursday.” Once the policy is changed, the Department of Defense will enter what is being called an “assessment phase,” in which each branch of service will examine all its jobs and units not currently integrated and then produce a timetable for integrating them.
[...]
The Army and Marine Corps, especially, will be examining physical standards and gender-neutral accommodations within combat units. Every 90 days, the service chiefs will have to report on their progress.The move will be one of the last significant policy decisions made by Panetta, who is expected to leave in mid-February. It is not clear where former Sen. Chuck Hagel, the nominated replacement, stands, but officials say he has been apprised of Panetta’s coming announcement.
“It will take a while to work out the mechanics in some cases. We expect some jobs to open quickly, by the end of this year. Others, like special operations forces and infantry, may take longer,” a senior defense official explained. Panetta is setting the goal of January 2016 for all assessments to be complete and women to be integrated as much as possible.
The Pentagon has left itself some wiggle room, however, which may ultimately lead to some jobs being designated as closed to women. A senior defense official said if, after the assessment, a branch finds that “a specific job or unit should not be open, they can go back to the secretary and ask for an exemption to the policy, to designate the job or unit as closed.”
The official said the goal remains to open as many jobs as possible. “We should open all specialties to the maximum extent possible to women. We know they can do it.”
[...]
More here.
I recommend extreme caution in determining which military roles are suitable for women.
I posted this comment on SOFREP:
I’m a woman of (ahem) advanced age and small stature. Many decades ago, I was into weightlifting and other forms of exercise. Somehow I got to the point where I had about as much upper body strength as many of the males who went to the same gym. But I had to put in a much higher level of effort to get and stay at that level. I was also into cycling and swimming, but my speed and endurance was never anywhere near comparable to what an average male could do without much trouble. For that reason, I never had any illusions that I or any other woman should attempt to compete with men, either in sports or in any other arena that requires speed and strength.
That is not to say that women and girls shouldn’t participate in sports, do hard work, acquire the skills to defend themselves and others, and cultivate the virtue of courage. They should do all those things. Men and women are of equal worth in the sight of God, but that does not mean that men and women are the same or that they can fulfill the same functions in the same ways.
And this one:
I am female, waaaaay older than dirt, not very big, not very strong, though physically active. I’ve never been in the military though many of my relatives have served in combat and I honor their service. I’m a huge Second Amendment defender. As long as I’m still able to move around and shoot, I’d take up arms if the US were invaded and there was a genuine need. Same if family members and friends were endangered. Nothing wrong with training women, in the military and elsewhere, to keep fit and to shoot well.
That said. the evidence has shown, over and over, that women are not physically capable of serving in infantry combat or special forces on foreign soil.
The armed services should, in my opinion, be more careful to screen out and not accept women for service unless the women have the physical capabilities to go through training without becoming injured. It is already the case that too many women enlist and then wash out because they just don’t have the innate physical endowments to cope with the level of physical stress. They may WANT to succeed, and wholeheartedly try, but accepting recruits who simply don’t have what it takes into the armed services does no favors either for the recruits or for the service. I would most likely have joined if I had what it takes but I knew full well that I just didn’t. To imagine that one is some sort of a superman or superwoman is pride that goeth before a fall.
In any case, even if there hypothetically were enough women who have the strength and endurance to serve in infantry or special ops roles, putting armed women and men together in close quarters in harm’s way under intense stress with no privacy and limited (or no) availability of personal hygiene is such a stupid idea that nobody should even consider it any further. It’s a recipe for explosive interpersonal conflicts, unintended pregnancies, and the rapid spread of diseases. I think Panetta is flat-out insane and I can only hope that cooler heads will prevail in the Senate and Congress to put a stop to this.
oldSquid commented:
I would recommend you read The Challenges of Women in Combat Roles -and specifically link to the reports Majrod mentioned, listed below.
- “Gender-Diverse” Army Ranger School? – Part II
- Get Over It! We Are Not All Created Equal
- Defense Department “Diversity” Push for Women In Land Combat
These will give some good insight.
Indeed.
Tags: Leon Panetta, women in combat
That this will get women killed is considered the cherry on top of the sundae for the people pushing this. It isn’t about what is good for the Service, or even what is good for the individual women. It is about seeing women come home in body bags.
Annie Oakley would have made a hell of a sniper
@ heysoos:
There was a Russian woman sniper during the Battle of Stalingrad who was supposed to be very formidable, but there you are looking about a very exceptional woman, and a very specialized role in combat in a very specific combat environment. She wasn’t doing the typical Scout/Sniper role that would be more familiar for our troops. She wasn’t lugging a 150 poundpack with her when she left her base camp to go kill Germans. Part of it simply is about physical strength. Women are simply not, in general, as physically strong as men. They simply cannot meet the same physical requirements as men, and I’ve already heard one of the big-wigs in the Obama Administration (might have been Panetta) say that if they can’t meet the requirements, then the requirements could be loosened. Like I said, this isn’t really about equality, or the good of the service, or the good of the women involved. The people pushing this want to see women coming home in body bags. This is under the theory that Americans will be less willing to support a war in which women are being killed.
How soon before the Liberal D’Rats start pushing to unionize the U.S. Military?? That has always been part of their plan to convert the military into another (failed) social welfare program.
Wait until the first female soldier gets captured and raped.
Da_Beerfreak wrote:
Putting the “strike” in “Strike Force”…
dwarves actually made the best tunnel rats in Viet Nam…
actually I don’t see this as an issue, it’s going nowhere…maybe a fun intellectual exercise tho
@ Iron Fist:
Even a very strong woman I do believe would not be able to carry the equipment that male soldiers carry. For one before they would ever be able to be in combat their backs would probably fracture under the weight of equipment most males soldiers carry. Women could probably be very good snipers if they only had to carry the gun. Period. There is a place in the military for women but it isn’t on the front lines and in combat.
Just like women can give birth to a baby and their bodies do well..if a man were to give birth (just saying) their hearts would not be able to handle it. Men and women are different. Plain and simple doesn’t mean one is more equal than the other..but their bodies are very different and what a male could do…a woman probably will not be able to do.
These idiots in Washington have been watching too many movies.
@ Speranza:
Yeah, al Qaeda (or, for that matter, any of our other enemies since Nazi Germany) isn’t real big on the Geneva Convention…
heysoos wrote:
I would have thought they’d prefer hobbits, and kept the dwarves for gunsmithing and other ordnance…
Iron Fist wrote:
I have this image of the Geneva Hilton with a sign out front, “Geneva Hilton Welcomes Al-Qaeda Conventioneers.”
Iron Fist wrote:
Germany signed the Geneva Convention -- and it did not help the Soviet POWs at all.
Summer of 1992. Met a woman that was R031 (reservist infantry). Part of my section for a two week training/field exercise. She was rough, tough, and capable for the role. Good looking as well. Fit in to the group quite well. I guess things were just a tad to rough and tough for her though. After we returned to our unit she transferred over to the admin side instead of staying a ground pounder. Never did get a clear answer out of her why she switched like that. Still, she seemed to be the exception not the rule.
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
good point, maybe I have the myth wrong
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
All Platoon Sergeants will be replaced with shop stewards elected by the enlisted members of the platoon and will report directly to the Company’s Political commissar …
heysoos wrote:
It is much more of a bigger deal than you think. Not only will womens bodies not be able to keep up with the male soldiers…the male soldiers will be doing double-time in making sure the female soldiers are capabale of living through the combat. I’m not being sexist ..I’m being realistic. I’m not saying women are capable of being in the military…combat is a whole other subject though.
Interesting that the Left is trying to sneak gun control in under the cover of “common sense,” but is manifestly not trying to do so here.
PaladinPhil wrote:
She probably had the will but the body didn’t.
@ Da_Beerfreak:
During the Civil War on both sides of the line Regimental officers were often elected by the men. Not really the best thing for troop discipline, I don’t guess.
@ buzzsawmonkey:
Gun control isn’t really common sense, either. Common sense dictates that you carry a gun for self-defense, not that you be disarmed and helpless against aggressors.
Lily wrote:
No one was assisting her and we were doing route marches with full kit, pepper potting (advance contact drills), more marching, minimal sleep, etc. etc. etc.
She had also gone through the summer infantry course and I believe advanced infantry course. At times I wonder if some officers at our unit had a “talk” with her.
Speranza wrote:
Yup.
Iron Fist wrote:
Agreed—but surely you’ve noticed the constant appeals to “common sense” in the current rhetoric storm?
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
The irony is that it has been that the Liberals have been leading a crusade against “common sense” for decades that now want people to start using “common sense” when it comes to gun control.
@ buzzsawmonkey:
Yes, I just disagree that it is common sense. Especially in the light of the dismal failure that is Chicago. Chicago is proof that gun control laws only disarm the law abiding Something else that is really only common sense, if you think about it. What the gun controllers mean is Shut up and listen to me! when they avow common sense. What they avow is in no way sense at all.
Iron Fist wrote:
Folks with the money could also buy a commission and raise their own company to take to the front and fight for the common cause. The Prussian System was a big improvement.
Rodan wrote:
Media reaction will depend on which party is in the White House at the time…
Speranza wrote:
I am not sure, but didn’t that happen in Iraq?
Meh. If a woman can meet the full requirements and wants in, I say give her a shot. We’ve already had brave women killed in combat zones, and we’ll have more. We have no shortage of brave and patriotic women, so for those that have the physical and emotional ability and desire those combat roles, I say good on them and let them loose. Our enemies should be very, very afraid… Just don’t lower standards to fill some stupid quota -- that’s a recipe for disaster.
Mike C. wrote:
And they should be given combat pay and retroactive combat status when that occurs. That seems a more sensible policy than a policy making women part of the front line as a matter of course.
@ Mike C.:
This is all about quotas, though, and checking off a Diversity box. And it is about downgrading the combat efficacy of our military. That is why Obama’s so hot to do it.
@ Speranza:
Didn’t that already happen to Jessica Lynch?
PaladinPhil wrote:
Could be. My husband had a women apprentice when he was working on his tools as an electrican …she could pull the wire, she could do the work and did not want any help from the men….she lasted til she was able to become a full-fledged electrican a couple of years later her body gave out. Pulling the heavy wire and doing the other heavy work did a number on her body.
@ Carolina Girl:
I don’t think that Jessica Lynch was raped. She was captured, though, and that was a big news item at the time. A much bigger news Item than it would have been had she been a man.
PaladinPhil wrote:
A few women might be able to do all this for a while.
But after a few years, it will take a horrible toll on their health.
If the women want to be able to bear children in the future, the aftereffects of that physical stress could be an issue.
Da_Beerfreak wrote:
*facepalm*
It makes me intensely angry that the leftists have managed to co-opt yet another useful phrase in the American vernacular.
Iron Fist wrote:
conflicting stories on the web… Cornum however was documented http://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/29/us/female-pow-is-abused-kindling-debate.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
Posting is difficult. Just back from second round of hand surgery.
From my admittedly limited experience in the Army ’79 to ’82 women in front line combat units would be unwise. My Basic Training company had a female platoon, so I trained with females in basic combat skills. My advanced training was in helecopter maintenance, which was co-ed as well.
Let’s be honest here -- if our troops are fighting Islamists, men taken prisoner are as likely to be raped as women. You could add horses and donkeys to that list, too. Goats, if we used them.
as ugly as it is I am pretty sure male POWs get raped too…
and in the ME bomb sniffing dogs say “they will never take me alive” for that matter
@ Mike C.:
GMTA
@ Mike C.:
Let’s be honest here — if our troops are fighting Islamists, men taken prisoner are as likely to be raped as women.
Aint that the truth.
@ brookly red:
Thanks, BR. I had forgotten about Cornum. Do these libturds THINK before they initiate these self-righteous policies.
And the day that policy goes “live” -- there will be a call (as there should be, frankly) for women 18-26 to be required to register for the draft. Think Oblahblah and the Dems will be popular among all those pretty little lasses in the big cities? I’m thinking No.
Rodan wrote:
They treat their own kind like animals so kuffars cannot expect much mercy.
Hey, if Brennan gets the CIA slot we won’t have to worry about it anyway. American soldiers fighting jihadis? It is to laugh.
Carolina Girl wrote:
He can do no wrong -- always remember “It’s Bush’s fault!”.
Carolina Girl wrote:
on the other hand I know a few ladies in the Bronx that if given the between 3 years in infantry or 5 in prison would opt for the 3… they should be given the same option as men
The Iranians let children into the front combat positions. Same will happen here only more subtly.
Iron Fist wrote:
One of the women captured in 1991 during a battle on the Saudi- Kuwait border (Khafji) I believe was sexually “molested”.
darkwords wrote:
hmmmm, drop a high school class from Chicago behind enemy lines???
Let me think about that.
@ citizen_q:
CQ -- My prayers and hopes for a speedly and painless recovery!
@ Speranza:
When the military starts leaving (i.e., not re-enlisting), there’s no way he can blame it on Bush. But that, of course, won’t keep him from trying, mind you…..
Iron Fist wrote:
In her book she claims she was… http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-11-06-lynch_x.htm
I’d find out what type of combat women were better at than men and place them in those positions. I would never do the everyone is equal treatment.
darkwords wrote:
well the problem with that is the enemy doesn’t get the memos.
@ Speranza:
Looks like the Iranians are scared al-Qaeda might capture some of their documents.
‘Tehran removing key intel material from Damascus’
Carolina Girl wrote:
They will blame George W. Bush for the next generation forgetting the fact that Bush until 2008 (and that was not his fault) provided over a pretty strong economy.
Even in civilized America there are plenty of men with irrational attitudes about women. Fairly ugly mindsets. Exponential that out when one hits the tahir square culture. If I were a women in a unit I would want to be in a “fight to the death” mindset. The other side doesn’t get to live.
Rodan wrote:
Those rotten Iranians deserve the worst!
@ Carolina Girl:
Thank you very much!
Rodan wrote:
blossoming into a nice little war, I’d say
Iron Fist wrote:
Exactly. The feminization of the military to weaken it.
@ Speranza:
Al-Qaeda has proven to be a formidable fighting force. But don’t worry, Obama says they are disintegrating!
When the goal of the military becomes Social Justice,
not winning wars we are in some serious trouble.
heysoos wrote:
lets hope those non existent WMDs of Sadam’s don’t show up in Boston.
brookly red wrote:
why not?
Rodan wrote:
one by one the are becoming community organizers…
@ Speranza:
I want to see the reaction of people who are against abortion in the case of rape defend that position is a female soldier is rape.
Rodan wrote:
They are on the run. //
Rodan wrote:
God’s will /
Actually that sounds like an Arabic saying i.e. inshallah.
Speranza wrote:
If you’ll refer to the new Army handbook, that would be referred to as “a harsh de-briefing”.
huckfunn wrote:
Draft Sandra Fluke!
huckfunn wrote:
biological interrogation
But this mob is totally qualified to do a radical overhaul of the military./
RIX wrote:
Fact the US has not decisively won a war since WWII.
Korea -- Draw
Vietnam -- military win, political loss
Gulf War I -- Inconclusive win
Iraq -- military win, strategic loss
Afghanistan -- TBD
What do they all have in common? No declaration of war.
@ Speranza:
I’m still waiting for Oblahblah to enumerate precisely what “failed policies” of the Bush administration led to the collapse of the housing market and the failure of the market in mortgage backed securities.
I would like to know what Bush policies led to the bad business decisions by Richard Fuld when Lehman Brothers was in trouble.
I would like to know what Bush policies led to AIG’s heavy investing in the credit swap market.
I doubt he could tell me. Because when you ask his sycophants, they look at you like a deer in the headlights and sound like an 8′ Boston Whaler leaving the dock — but…but….but….
I agree with what MikeC said upthread. I hope they do not compromise standards. I think there will be tremendous pressure to do so.
Also, consider some of the little maybe not so obvious complications like toilet facilities, for example. We used open slit trenches out on bivuac, and the women had pota-potties in Basic. How would that work on a combat patrol?
@ Speranza:
Assad and Hizballah beg to differ!
@ Speranza:
Yeah its God’s will that an American gets raped by a Muzz.
////
Not my God’s, that for sure.
Rodan wrote:
War on Drugs…
War on Crime…
War on Poverty…
Speranza wrote:
What “They” don’t tell the people is that Al-Qaeda is running TO the sound of gunfire…
Speranza wrote:
Princess Papoolie haz plenty papaya.
@ Da_Beerfreak:
Exactly. But do not worry, Obama says they are beaten!
Carolina Girl wrote:
/exactly why women should not be in combat…
stop asking questions and start following orders
@ huckfunn:
Send her to the front lines and the enemy will flee in terror from her ugly looks.
@ brookly red:
Other failures.
I gotta go catch a plane. Later
Rodan wrote:
This is not the failure of the military, to be fair. Politicians want go to war but don’t want to bear the consequences so they don’t let the military act as it should, could and would.
Rodan wrote:
don’t forget the vast billions building govt subsidized hi-rise ghettos…St Louis, Chicago, Memphis etc
We just don’t fight them to win. I want every US troop out
of Afghanistan tomorrow.
There is nothing left to accomplish. Al Queda moved on & the Taliban
will,probably reestablish itself.
There will not be a Jeffersonian Democracy there & our kids are too
valuable for this political crap.
@ Guggi:
I am in now ay saying its the military’s fault. My point is that if the US goes to war, you commit to it by officially declaring war and mobilize the population and resources to achieve victory.
@ RIX:
I agree!
Rodan wrote:
these are boutique wars…I like that little one near the beach over there
Seriously there should be a limit to age for Congressmen/women and Senators.
Guggi wrote:
We have the most formidable military that the world has ever seen.
But they are misused, no winning strategy, crazy ROE’s & multiple
deployments.
They go to war & everybody else goes to the mall.
Rodan wrote:
and that means killing people and breaking things…
could Iran stand up to 72 hours of shock and awe? Me thinks not.
@ Guggi:
Yup!
@ brookly red:
They can’t even beat al-Qaeda.
Guggi wrote:
they are self employed businessmen and do whatever they want
heysoos wrote:
but the locals are so quaint, do try to bomb around the artists quarter would you?
brookly red wrote:
blow a couple of dams, blow their one refinery, blow their port facilities…30min total, done for decades
Rodan wrote:
well yeah, we have the same problem with our foreign policy as we do with our domestic. fear of commitment.
RIX wrote:
This is what you get when you have generals with a Ph.D. in sociology
heysoos wrote:
not enough… they would go all asymmetrical on us. You need to pour it on till they beg and them pour it on some more till they come to understand
Astan will turn out to be our greatest military blunder…not one good thing can come of it, it’s all for nothing and a shame GB didn’t shut it down
Guggi wrote:
Let’s put out the call for a “Common Sense” retirement age for Politicians and see how far it goes…
brookly red wrote:
let them go a whatever…this all happens from high in the sky…just practice
@ buzzsawmonkey:
Women get the same combat pay men do now. Everyone deployed to a country that’s considered a hostile fire zone gets it, along with the tax exemption. It has nothing to do with their duty assignment.
@ Guggi:
They put an age limit on the rest of us, didn’t they? 62 to 67.
Guggi, you are exactly right. The other problem is that senior
officers seem too political.
I understand that Obama is the Commander in Chief, but guys like
Mullin slobbered over him when he was Chairman.
But the Commandant of the Marine Corps seems like he still knows
how to stand up.
RIX wrote:
We have a totally dysfunctional government in DC Town, don’t expect anything they try to work as planed. We are now living in the United State of Fail….
Carolina Girl wrote:
well yes but THEY get health care and could last longer.
Rodan wrote:
They can’t even beat speeding ticket…
@ lobo91:
Does lack of front line combat hurt women for promotion?
I hear that a lot.
It is a mess.
Da_Beerfreak wrote:
wtf are you talking about? everything is going exactly as planed… the economy is in shambles, 10s of millions are dependent on the gubermint, the riling class is solidified, the Church is marginalized, the media is corrupted every thing is working just as planned how can you say fail?
Ooooo the guns… I forgot about the guns.
@ RIX:
Sorry, but the military shouldn’t be an Equal Oppertunity outfit. It is about winning wars, not making sure diversity checkboxes are checked. Will women on the front lines help win wars? The ansdwer is an unqualified no.
RIX wrote:
It’s not an issue of being able to actually serve in combat. It’s an issue of being able to serve in a combat arms position. Plenty of people have been promoted over the years without combat service. Petraeus was a 2 star general when he was first deployed on a combat tour.
The issue is that the only people who are eligible for the top positions--chief of staff, or one of the combatant command positions--are combat arms officers.
Iron Fist wrote:
We threw that idea out 15 years ago, when the Navy started putting women on ships.
Any honest officer will tell you that program has been an unmitigated disaster, along with being tremendously expensive.
Carolina Girl wrote:
Most of those jackasses on Wall Street with their MBA’s who were responsible for the collapse were liberal Democrats.
Of course Jon Corzine was a Republcian. //
That’s right. The Military should not act as a sociological experiment.
If you go to war, go with your best troops & equipment, use overwhelming
force & win the thing.
@ lobo91:
Thanks, that clarifies it.
The only “alternative reality” is the one where Fox News is hurting.
@ RIX:
It’s all about having a female chief of staff someday.
@ lobo91:
Dear Anita -- Please go to Google and type in the following words: AUDIENCE SHARE.
The Senate need five Republican votes for cloture on Hagels nomination.
They have four & Lamar Alexander is the wild card.
RIX wrote:
This is exact what I’m saying since months. Clinton wanted the politization of the military to gain more influence of the Democratic party. Mullen or Dempsey all wrote long essays about “military ethics” and the dividing line between military and politics but acted otherwise. How can they be role models for anyone in the military ? They have seen what happened to Peter Pace and prefere to become sycophants. The relationship between military and the civil government has become a very unhealthy one.
lobo91 wrote:
Identity politics.
brookly red wrote:
It all depends on one’s point of view.
There really are two Americas…
oops! The Senate fell one vote short of cloture on Hagel.
RIX wrote:
No? I got a great experiment… lets see the sociological effects if our enemies start enemies start dying.
I’m not sure what city this moron is from, but his department must be so proud:
As political as anybody in any Board Room.
RIX wrote:
I hope that leaves a mark…
@ lobo91:
look at their faces, so sure and intent while they burn tax dollars playing juvenile semantic games…it’s laughable
Da_Beerfreak wrote:
if Hagel had any real sense of service and leadership, he’d withdraw…it’s just one big game….would you rather be shot by Buggsy or Al?
@ lobo91:
Garry Mccarthy is Chicago Superentendent of Police. He came
from New York or New Jersey.
After he got here he visted St. Sabina Church which is Father Pflegers Church.
He addressed the crowd saying that the Tea Party is responsible
for most of the violence.
Da_Beerfreak wrote:
it will force debate… advantage here.
Da_Beerfreak wrote:
Damn GOPee is playing games with the Hagel vote.
SSDD
I’ll bet that it does.
RIX wrote:
NY… one of blommie’s whores
@ RIX:
That clown has no business being a cop, much less a chief of police.
Police carry sidearms for self-defense, not for the purpose of intimidating citizens into compliance.
lobo91 wrote:
Thugs carry for the purpose of intimidation…
@ lobo91:
So by his reasoning police are a hostile occupying force?
He is ok with law abiding gun owners? But what abut the passage of laws that violate the 2nd Amendment that turn law abiding gun owners today into criminals into criminals by no further action on their part?
lobo91 wrote:
welcome to obamanation.
citizen_q wrote:
oh shatz, the journo just forgot to ask that question
Da_Beerfreak wrote:
Political power grows from the barrel of a gun…
Mao Tse-tung
@ lobo91:
McCarthy seems duffus, but he has a big job.
Thanks, will they take him back?
Of some note:
2 1/2 years out of the front yard of the Mash Unit at Red Beach Da Nang into Laos, DMZ area had S. Korean body guards, none of the women.
Mr Chung along with Jessie and tfk had the last say so on any newbeies sent to go with us. Had the same 8 S. Korans most the whole way. The three replacements we used were just as good as the other 8.
We tuned down about 20 Marine kids they sent the time and 10 or so Army guys. Most of them to young and not enough training and per Jessie, Mr. Chung they did not have mad dog killer in the eyes, and a few just looked like they could not pack the load we had to carry or looked like they could run about 1/2 mile before they would need to stop for chow.
Thing is days in the woods, sometimes so close we could smell the BO and or they could smell us.
Any one who thinks that a team like that would be better with one or two women along to make the commie Democrat do gooders and liberal Generals feel good, well my response would have been and would be if they ask me to do it…
“If it is such a good f’n idea you haul your ass in the helo and have fun ass wipe. “You better make sure you life ins. is paid up and big bucks.”
dumber than dirt.
” Levinworth is a better deal, “K”,…
let’s quit burning daylight and get to the point…I’m ready for a showdown…all this fake legislation and double talk is boring…if these people had any sense of principle, honesty or conviction, they’d simply start the process of changing the law…if the’d rather do it the hard, bloody way that’s fine with me…I’m not gonna live forever
RIX wrote:
you can never go back…
brookly red wrote:
It takes a Good Guy with a gun to stop a Bad Guy with a gun.
@ lobo91:
I know exactly where he’s from -- Emeryville, California, the town between Berkeley and Oakland. The only time this fatass sees any crime is if the high-speed chase of a real criminal out of Oakland hits Highway 80 eastbound.
Emeryville is known for three things: Mud flats on the shore of the Bay, an IKEA and the last gas station before the Bay Bridge.
For those who remember the Oakland meetup, Emeryville was also the location of the Chevy’s that we hinted to the hysterical libturds was our location was for the dinner and where Zombie was going to set up shop in the bar to see if any of them showed up to find us.
In short -- he is a MORON.
RIX wrote:
Lake Michigan is a lot closer…
Da_Beerfreak wrote:
@ brookly red:
Sounds like your decision is final.
@ Carolina Girl:
I like his 4 star insignia.
Maybe if he crosses the Rhamfather.
RIX wrote:
ahhhh if only it was my decision…
@ Carolina Girl:
I just checked on the Emeryville PD. It has 51 fulltime employees, 35 of whom are sworn officers.
4 stars, indeed…
RIX wrote:
nein, er wird von Hand aus einem feinen assortmet der turds ausgewählt, um die Rahmfather unterstützt
@ brookly red:
What you said.
RIX wrote:
no, he is selected by hand from a fine assortment of turds to the Rahmfather support
brookly red wrote:
Assortiment (a very outdated word
)
lobo91 wrote:
Not too overblown of an ego…
The Head of the Minnesota State Highway Patrol is “only” a Colonel.
Guggi wrote:
life is like a box of chocolates, bitch.
Rham is Obamas man in Chicago.
RIX wrote:
Ja, der Auserwählte
brookly red wrote:
I guess if I would use the German word “Assortiment” only few of the students would understand it.
Da_Beerfreak wrote:
Maybe like that cheers episode, they could not afford pay raises so they gave out titles.
/
RIX wrote:
Chicago ist die Heimat von ihr die nützlichen Idioten werden aufsprossen
@ lobo91:
Yeah, four stars. One for each of his officers. Two for each shift. No graveyard, since that would probably be the time when they’d have to offensively use their weapons. Let’s them have one bullet for their pockets at the start of the shift.
He probably moonlights his fat ass chasing off the teenagers who try to attend TWO movies at the AMC multiplex. You can view Emeryville from the car pool flyover.
Blink, and you’ve missed it.
Guggi wrote:
hey assortment… we got lot’s of boot licking lackeys in the NYC farm team… all ready willing and able to distort the truth for the cause… personally I think he should have picked a black one.
brookly red wrote:
Dadaism ?
Emeryville’s motto (population 8,000) is “our strength is our people.”
It better be…cuz it sure as hell isn’t your police department.
Guggi wrote:
besides my German is not that good… now Cato, or Ludwig not there was and understanding!
Guggi wrote:
more like suckassism…
Guggi wrote:
Oh my… I just got it. sorry I said “diversity” didn’t I ? hahaha!
I never understood why Khadafi was only a colonel.
I would have promoted myself to General.
RIX wrote:
plausible deniability… Obama is only POTUS heck despite his best intentions he is still hindered by the almighty BUSH!
brookly red wrote:
just got off the phone again…another wasted 30min dealing with the feds…trying to find out where my moms death pension is via the VA…a process that was supposed to take 72 hrs is now into 13 months…unreal the shit I’ve had to go thru…the feds take a simple notion and bomb it with so much redundant crap, ridiculous, almost vanished info….hoop after hoop…it’s very discouraging…this is what scores of thousands of vets will have to deal with…man, what a shaft
heysoos wrote:
it’s called attrition… you will die of old age before they pay.
Guggi wrote:
loves me some Guggi
Harry Reid said today that we are in danger ofnot having a Sec of Defense
while we are at war.
That’s nonsense since Panetta said that he would stay until new one
is confirmed.
brookly red wrote:
they are going to pay regardless…I have a file of every call, every document, a timeline, and some names…this has been a nightmare and worse, I’m pissed..I looked high and low for my folks marriage cert…could not find one in Michigan, did not exist…I was wondering what to do next when my sister ran into my moms oldest friend in church and dropped the bomb that my folks eloped and got married in Ohio…I flew to the PC and in an hour iced the document, sent to me the next day by a very nice county clerk…the feds are totally out of touch regarding the VA
RIX wrote:
Obama: Michelle, what’s wrong calling my self god? … oh that again… Moses? wtf? would you get over this Moses thing? I mean really woman do you like the lobster or what? Yes I know…
New Thread.
heysoos wrote:
going thru the same thing with my father’s benefits to my mother… “here is his social security number you tell me where he was stationed, I wasn’t fuckin born yet”
RIX wrote:
Does he say that the president is unfit for command ?
That is the implication, even if unintended.
Speranza wrote:
Even in that instance I do not believe that the child deserves punishment.
That said, not putting women in the infantry or special ops is a good way to lessen the likelihood of their being raped.
citizen_q wrote:
In Chicago, and probably also in LA, they are.
But then, the voters arguably deserve what they keep voting for.
That said, Dorner is disgusting and so is his mother. Never forget that he voluntarily joined those thugs.
RIX wrote:
Ya THINK?
RIX wrote:
Indeed.
Da_Beerfreak wrote:
That’s why I’m a secessionist. Sadly, because that’s unlikely to happen soon enough for me to live to see it, we’re fixing to emigrate just to survive economically and spiritually.
The Devil has taken over this place and our staying here would be of no use in putting an end to that situation.
@ Iron Fist:
Yes! A second point: Now that we have this policy, it’s time for women to be required to sign up for Selective Service — let them experience equality !
@ 1389AD:
for all those who mention women being raped — you realize that many men have been raped in order to soften them up for interrogation, right ?
@ Iron Fist:
I agree that this is all about quotas, and nothing at all about equality, or National Defense preparedness.