Rush Limbaugh's Axiom

[CrusaderFrank]

Pete Hegseth Shuts Down Democratic Senators Grilling Him on Women in Combat

townhall.com

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?

During WWII Russia had some of the most lethal female snipers, that works. Today, it would be handling drones or programming AI; a woman should NOT be tasked with dragging a wounded 200lb man off the battlefield!

 

[Mushroom]

You cannot count on them during War Time. Peace time yes....deployed during war? No.

And please in your actual experience explain to us why this is.

In case you are not aware, over 300,000 did serve in a recent war.

This is what I mean by people bloviating and making stupid statements that have no basis on reality. Want to know how many of the females in my battalion did not deploy because of pregnancy?

One. Yep, that's it. One. And here is the beauty, she was pregnant when she arrived at the unit! She did not get pregnant to avoid deploying, and she was not even an "air defender", she was a medic. She was already pregnant when she got PCS orders (I want to say from Fort Sill), and was actually disappointed that it was not allowed to join the unit after her kid was born.

But guess what? A year later when we were replaced by the next Battalion, she was there with them. Yep, got a transfer and joined the next unit that did deploy.

But you know what all you are saying reminds me of? The types of people 70 years ago that were saying we could not "count on" minorities.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Want to know how many of the females in my battalion did not deploy because of pregnancy?

Get off her!

 

[Mac-7]

Pete Hegseth Shuts Down Democratic Senators Grilling Him on Women in Combat

townhall.com

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?

And BTW, who actually benefits from this terrible idea?

Dikes who want to make general someday

 

[AZrailwhale]

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.

You're neglecting Combat Engineers. That branch is even more physical than Infantry.

 

[JohnDB]

And please in your actual experience explain to us why this is.

In case you are not aware, over 300,000 did serve in a recent war.

This is what I mean by people bloviating and making stupid statements that have no basis on reality. Want to know how many of the females in my battalion did not deploy because of pregnancy?

One. Yep, that's it. One. And here is the beauty, she was pregnant when she arrived at the unit! She did not get pregnant to avoid deploying, and she was not even an "air defender", she was a medic. She was already pregnant when she got PCS orders (I want to say from Fort Sill), and was actually disappointed that it was not allowed to join the unit after her kid was born.

But guess what? A year later when we were replaced by the next Battalion, she was there with them. Yep, got a transfer and joined the next unit that did deploy.

But you know what all you are saying reminds me of? The types of people 70 years ago that were saying we could not "count on" minorities.

She was a tent medic in the rear with the gear....
She wasn't carrying an M-60 or other munitions.

101st airborne I got to see first hand. They aren't many women around when time to deploy.....they all got pregnant, DDed or something else to avoid combat roles.
Those women just entering the theater of deployment (in the rear with the gear) deployed much more often. Seldom popped pregnant (norplant) but still ended up with a lot of extra pay quite often. Ain't no hoe like an army hoe.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Limbaugh was a fat fuck draft dodger who made some poor kid die for him...just like your Orange Jesus Trump.

 

[Mushroom]

You're neglecting Combat Engineers. That branch is even more physical than Infantry.

Kinda funny, how you claim I am "neglecting" Combat Engineers. While I actually specifically listed them as a "Combat Arm".

It also includes Air Defense, Aviation, and Combat Engineers.

 

[Mushroom]

She was a tent medic in the rear with the gear....
She wasn't carrying an M-60 or other munitions.

Holy cow, nobody carries around an M-60 anymore. I have not even seen one in use since around the time of the Gulf War. I am absolutely amazed here, as the M-60 was only retired almost three decades ago.

And even today, wanna know how many hump an M-240? Damned near nobody. Only those in a Weapons Platoon would be using one of those, they are not even Rifle Platoon level weapon in the first place. 95% of actual Infantrymen will never fire one other than as "familiarization". However, I have known a lot of gals that operated M2 .50 cals and Mk-19 40mm grenade launchers.

And guess how many of the male Medics today would be carrying an M-240? It would be the same as the number of medics that carried M-60s back in the early 1990s and before.

I can give you an answer really easily, none. The weapon of a medic is a sidearm, as in an M9 9mm pistol. That is because as medical personnel, they are prohibited by the Geneva Convention to carry anything other than sidearms.

Sorry, you are attempting to shovel a bunch of crap here, but that is all that it is. Crap.

Oh, and I actually can't heard the last time I heard of the Screaming Eagle referred to by somebody who had actually be in the unit as "Airborne" unless they served before the mid-1970s. In case you are not aware, for over half a century now they have been the 101st Air Assault Division. But added with a great many other things, I have to question if you actually know anything that you claim to be pontificating on about. Because quite literally everything you are trying to claim is decades out of date (if not a half century or more). More like the kind of things I hear all the time from those who try to claim they are veterans, but after talking for a minute or two is obvious the closest they probably ever came to serving was watching an action movie.

Because I find it almost impossible to believe that somebody who actually served in the military is not aware that all medical personnel are specifically classified as "Non-Combatants". In fact, just like one other group who serve in the military they can not even be "Prisoners of War".

 

[AZrailwhale]

Kinda funny, how you claim I am "neglecting" Combat Engineers. While I actually specifically listed them as a "Combat Arm".

I was reacting to this sentence: "That being infantry, armor, and artillery. " But I apologize, you did refer to them earlier.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Holy cow, nobody carries around an M-60 anymore. I have not even seen one in use since around the time of the Gulf War. I am absolutely amazed here, as the M-60 was only retired almost three decades ago.

And even today, wanna know how many hump an M-240? Damned near nobody. Only those in a Weapons Platoon would be using one of those, they are not even Rifle Platoon level weapon in the first place. 95% of actual Infantrymen will never fire one other than as "familiarization". However, I have known a lot of gals that operated M2 .50 cals and Mk-19 40mm grenade launchers.

And guess how many of the male Medics today would be carrying an M-240? It would be the same as the number of medics that carried M-60s back in the early 1990s and before.

I can give you an answer really easily, none. The weapon of a medic is a sidearm, as in an M9 9mm pistol. That is because as medical personnel, they are prohibited by the Geneva Convention to carry anything other than sidearms.

Sorry, you are attempting to shovel a bunch of crap here, but that is all that it is. Crap.

Oh, and I actually can't heard the last time I heard of the Screaming Eagle referred to by somebody who had actually be in the unit as "Airborne" unless they served before the mid-1970s. In case you are not aware, for over half a century now they have been the 101st Air Assault Division. But added with a great many other things, I have to question if you actually know anything that you claim to be pontificating on about. Because quite literally everything you are trying to claim is decades out of date (if not a half century or more). More like the kind of things I hear all the time from those who try to claim they are veterans, but after talking for a minute or two is obvious the closest they probably ever came to serving was watching an action movie.

Because I find it almost impossible to believe that somebody who actually served in the military is not aware that all medical personnel are specifically classified as "Non-Combatants". In fact, just like one other group who serve in the military they can not even be "Prisoners of War".

Not to nitpick, but I think SEALS still carry modified M-60s, but I could be wrong. SEALS are given a lot of latitude about what weapons they carry.

 

[0311]

Pete Hegseth Shuts Down Democratic Senators Grilling Him on Women in Combat

townhall.com

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?

Limberger was lying sack of shit racist and drug addict.

 

[Mushroom]

I was reacting to this sentence: "That being infantry, armor, and artillery. " But I apologize, you did refer to them earlier.

Those being the three that everybody thinks of, but I also pointed out the ones that most never even consider are Combat Arms.

 

[Mushroom]

Not to nitpick, but I think SEALS still carry modified M-60s, but I could be wrong. SEALS are given a lot of latitude about what weapons they carry.

And I am sure possible the Coast Guard also, as well as the Navy. I know in the late 1990s they were still using the M-60 to detonate water mines.

However, I am pretty sure no conventional units in the military are using them. Kinda like I am sure there are some armories that still have the M-79 in them. Even though that is long obsolete, and even the replacement for it (M-203) was made obsolete about a decade and a half ago by the M-320.