Rush Limbaugh's Axiom

DGS49

Diamond Member
Apr 12, 2012
17,885
17,383
2,415
Pittsburgh

The late great Rush Limbaugh articulated a strong principle that should govern all new initiatives proposed for our Armed Forces. It has a declaration and a conclusion: The purpose of the Armed Forces is to kill people and break stuff; Any new initiatives MUST be evaluated on whether it makes our Armed Forces better at killing people and breaking stuff. It not, it should be rejected.

Proposition: Women in Combat.

How could any rational human conclude that women in combat makes the Armed Forces better at its fundamental task? It is just silly. WIC introduces complexities and problems HEAPED ON TOP OF the problem of killing people and breaking stuff.

Bad idea. It should be rejected totally, and if already implemented, reversed as quickly as possible.

Women can do at least 75% of the tasks that our Armed Forces are required to do. But not the other 25%

And BTW, who actually benefits from this terrible idea?
 

The late great Rush Limbaugh articulated a strong principle that should govern all new initiatives proposed for our Armed Forces. It has a declaration and a conclusion: The purpose of the Armed Forces is to kill people and break stuff; Any new initiatives MUST be evaluated on whether it makes our Armed Forces better at killing people and breaking stuff. It not, it should be rejected.

Proposition: Women in Combat.

How could any rational human conclude that women in combat makes the Armed Forces better at its fundamental task? It is just silly. WIC introduces complexities and problems HEAPED ON TOP OF the problem of killing people and breaking stuff.

Bad idea. It should be rejected totally, and if already implemented, reversed as quickly as possible.

Women can do at least 75% of the tasks that our Armed Forces are required to do. But not the other 25%

And BTW, who actually benefits from this terrible idea?

Jews, after the YOM KIPPUR WAR.
 

The late great Rush Limbaugh articulated a strong principle that should govern all new initiatives proposed for our Armed Forces. It has a declaration and a conclusion: The purpose of the Armed Forces is to kill people and break stuff; Any new initiatives MUST be evaluated on whether it makes our Armed Forces better at killing people and breaking stuff. It not, it should be rejected.

Proposition: Women in Combat.

How could any rational human conclude that women in combat makes the Armed Forces better at its fundamental task? It is just silly. WIC introduces complexities and problems HEAPED ON TOP OF the problem of killing people and breaking stuff.

Bad idea. It should be rejected totally, and if already implemented, reversed as quickly as possible.

Women can do at least 75% of the tasks that our Armed Forces are required to do. But not the other 25%

And BTW, who actually benefits from this terrible idea?
Are you a war veteran?
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: IM2

The late great Rush Limbaugh articulated a strong principle that should govern all new initiatives proposed for our Armed Forces. It has a declaration and a conclusion: The purpose of the Armed Forces is to kill people and break stuff; Any new initiatives MUST be evaluated on whether it makes our Armed Forces better at killing people and breaking stuff. It not, it should be rejected.

Proposition: Women in Combat.

How could any rational human conclude that women in combat makes the Armed Forces better at its fundamental task? It is just silly. WIC introduces complexities and problems HEAPED ON TOP OF the problem of killing people and breaking stuff.

Bad idea. It should be rejected totally, and if already implemented, reversed as quickly as possible.

Women can do at least 75% of the tasks that our Armed Forces are required to do. But not the other 25%

And BTW, who actually benefits from this terrible idea?
Repeating the words of a college flunk out shows the level of your intelligence.
 
Women are just as capable of killing as men.
 
Women are just as capable of killing as men.
Killing yes, but as an ex-member of the Army Combat Arms (a Combat Engineer) almost all women are incapable of performing the tasks necessary to function on the modern battlefield. They lack the physical strength and endurance. If you had served, you would know that instead of offering ignorant opinions. One simple example, we used to routinely load ninety-pound bags of concrete into the bed of five-ton dump trucks. The bed of a five-ton dump is over five feet off the ground and we would spend hours loading bags. Another is that the combat load of an infantryman is between a hundred and a hundred fifty pounds. Basic body armor and helmet alone weigh ten pounds and that goes up if you add trauma plates and neck and arm protection. Another is that a discarding sabot 120mm tank round weighs forty-three and a half pounds and the minimum acceptable time to reload the gun is seven seconds from ejecting the shell stub to arming the gun after loading the next round. Women who can do that nine times a minute for any period of time are few and far between.
 
Killing yes, but as an ex-member of the Army Combat Arms (a Combat Engineer) almost all women are incapable of performing the tasks necessary to function on the modern battlefield. They lack the physical strength and endurance. If you had served, you would know that instead of offering ignorant opinions. One simple example, we used to routinely load ninety-pound bags of concrete into the bed of five-ton dump trucks. The bed of a five-ton dump is over five feet off the ground and we would spend hours loading bags. Another is that the combat load of an infantryman is between a hundred and a hundred fifty pounds. Basic body armor and helmet alone weigh ten pounds and that goes up if you add trauma plates and neck and arm protection. Another is that a discarding sabot 120mm tank round weighs forty-three and a half pounds and the minimum acceptable time to reload the gun is seven seconds from ejecting the shell stub to arming the gun after loading the next round. Women who can do that nine times a minute for any period of time are few and far between.
Reminds me of something my older son related from his first basic training experiences. He enlisted into the Army Reserve halfway through his Junior year in High School = Delayed Entry program, about 25 years ago. Though my son wanted to enlist for medic training, no slots were open so the recruiter talked him into going for Chemical Weapons/Warfare - supposedly close and transferable at later time.

So back then, "Combat Arms*" are: Infantry, Armor, Artillery. Supposedly male only MOS. Chemical Weapons(Warfare) being a "Combat Support Arm(type-organization-unit), and not a "front line combat" sort means that females could sign-up for the MOS in this branch. So my son goes to his first Basic Training where about 30-40% of his unit is female. The 'Female' get their own 'sleeping bay', 'Latrine', and 'Showers' - etc. on a separate floor in the Barracks, yet thy would muster in formation at the AM and march to class, drills, and other activities together.

So when it came to basic combat training, a few Differences begin to pop out!

1) Every soldier operating in the field is expected to be able to dig their own foxhole(pit) in the ground that will provide some protection from enemy fire; both direct and indirect. Seems most of the females in his basic training platoon aren't able to dig a hole in the ground fast enough and deep enough for the protection needed and per standard expectations. 'Their' Solution; entice one of their fellow Male troopers to finish digging such for them!

2) This one is a Classic, Basic, exercise that all combat(Infantry~grunt) should be able to do. The situation is your squad, moving down the road, takes fire and everyone dashes over to one side to take cover and return fire. However one of your team-mates is hit and lies in the middle of the road. The normal drill is for the squad to provide covering fire while one brave, speedy, strong member dashes out to grab the team-mate by his combat harness and drag him back under cover. This drill is done repeatedly until everyone has be the person to dash out, grab and drag back.

Most all guys can do this task. Very few females can do it, so it seems. Females often need another female to come out and help them get a grip and drag their comrade back to cover.

The point for consideration here is that instead of one team(squad) exposed to being hit and adding to the causality list, we have two (female) needed to perform the task and at risk (exposed) to add to the possible causality role. :rolleyes:

Point here is that it's bad enough to unit safety and integrity to place women in "Combat Support Unit" roles where they could multiply the troop injury and hazard rates in an action. There's also the factor of morale impact when the guys on their side have to see and deal with the females being hit and mangled by modern weapons. They don't need the added complication of higher percentage of injured team-mates to deal with one stuff has hit the fan!
 
Transgendered Soldiers who need a constant supply of injected hormones to keep from reverting to their hairy masculine identity? Is the freaking Military that desperate?
 
Transgendered Soldiers who need a constant supply of injected hormones to keep from reverting to their hairy masculine identity? Is the freaking Military that desperate?
I don't believe the military will want to deploy someone who is dependent on medication into a war zone. You don't know when or if you'll be able to get it. Notice there are no type 1 diabetics on the front lines.
 
How could any rational human conclude that women in combat makes the Armed Forces better at its fundamental task?

OK, I am going to disagree here, very strongly actually.

First of all, one has to know what the "Combat Arms" actually are. And no, it is not just infantry, tanks, and artillery.

It also includes Air Defense, Aviation, and Combat Engineers. Women do serve in all three of those branches, and have little to no negative impact on them. After all, it does not matter if the person emplacing and reloading a PATRIOT missile launcher, or the person in the command van launching the missiles to intercept a target is male or female. No more than it matters if the helicopter pilot attacking a BMP is male or female. Those are the kinds of tasks where it is so "mechanized" that any difference between male and female does not matter at all.

Even reloading the missiles on a PATRIOT launcher, the sex of the individual does not matter worth a damn. You are going to have one person operating a crane, and the other two are climbing on the launcher loosening and tightening bolts. It is not like artillery, where the crews are expected to move around 100 pound 155mm shells. Or in armor, where they would be expected to replace the tracks by hand, or constantly move 50 pound 120mm rounds.

This is the problem most have when trying to discuss this topic. On both sides of the extreme you have people pushing agendas, and completely ignoring what actually applies.

Myself, I have absolutely no problem with females in the last three branches. Because in none of them does it matter worth a damn. However, it does very much matter in the other branches of "Combat Arms", and because of physical limitations I do believe women largely do not belong. That being infantry, armor, and artillery. Women in Air Defense, makes absolutely no difference. Women in Infantry, you very much will have an issue simply because of physical limitations.

This is why I hate when people use such broad terms to politicize something.
 
So back then, "Combat Arms*" are: Infantry, Armor, Artillery.

Oh, even back then Air Defense was a Combat Arm. And was open to females. My CO when I deployed in 2009 was female, and she had just been made a 1st Lieutenant in 1990 when her unit was sent to Saudi Arabia for the Gulf War. And at that time, Air Defense was the only Combat Arm that allowed women to serve in it.

People for some reason tend to think of Infantry, Armor and Artillery as the "Combat Arms", but it also includes Air Defense, Combat Engineers and Aviation. And we have had female pilots involved in combat since 1994.
 
Space force, engineering roles, and air defense are perfectly fine for women's roles....
BUT.
You cannot count on them during War Time. Peace time yes....deployed during war? No.

Because women suddenly find they have become pregnant when it's deployment time.
Then there's the other scenario of a platoon being on remote assignments....the lone woman seems to garner herself all the other's paychecks.
Then there are those who whine that every guy is sexually harassing her....incessantly. she bounces from squad to squad, platoon to platoon Making false accusations about everyone and destroying careers along the way.

These scenarios cover roughly 80% of women in "leftover" combat roles. (Cherry jobs need to be earned BEFORE you enlist) Unfortunately many of these young women have agendas that are not aligned with simple military service.

Equal and not equity. We have had a completely race discrimination free military for decades before Clinton decided to play with homosexuals and women in the military. He gave them all the berets they now are famous for. Making them no longer signify anything special as they once did. Clinton really despised the military. (Draft dodger and protester)

It didn't get better with Bush....he worked them to death in the dust of various deserts.

These things have made recruitment difficult at best.

Department of the Boat People?
They are so short people they can't man what they have now. Huge signing bonuses these days. But you are going to be on a boat for 6-9 months at a time before rotation. And tight tight quarters to the point of zero privacy. (Boat life)
 

Forum List

Back
Top