Females Given Green Light For Navy SEALs

[Quick Karl]

I love this thread because it shows how people bury their heads in the sand and ignore reality to justify their outdated beliefs. The YPJ, in Syria, has shown just how capable women are at combat.

You are comparing apples to oranges -- in the regions you mentioned women are treated like livestock.

I have no problem if women want to join, I just don't want any standards reduced so that we "seem" inclusive. If they can run and gun like a SEAL and they can make it through BUDs with no special treatment, fine. That means they should shower with SEALS and shit with SEALS.

But no woman in Earth can do it - the hardest most determined men on the planet have a hard time doing it, and they don't get periods or tampon breaks.

[RealCool Daddio]

All Navy SEALs should be required to have a penis.  If nothing else, it will keep Quick Karl out of their ranks.

[Quick Karl]

All Navy SEALs should be required to have a penis.  If nothing else, it will keep Quick Karl out of their ranks.

Aww you poor dick sucking queer did something I say upset your faggity ass?

[RealCool Daddio]

Aww you poor dick sucking queer did something I say upset your faggity ass?

You sure are obsessed with dick sucking.  Is it because you wish you had one, so that a man could suck it?

[Ben Shockley]

All Navy SEALs should be required to have a penis.  If nothing else, it will keep Quick Karl out of their ranks.

As always, Daddio, you are very perceptive.

I think though, that in Karl's case, it's more like: he's jealous that those without a penis can do what he was just too damn scared to ever try --even with his tiny peepee. 
I stand ready for these blow-hard righties to prove me wrong with a scan of some discharge papers.  In Karl's case, though, I don't think that he's ever even CLAIMED doing any military service!

As for his insults at gays: same thing.  I have my 7 years in Army units that Karl could never serve in if he tried.  Karl:  show us some record of you doing a job that a gay man or a woman could never do.

[onan]

As always, Daddio, you are very perceptive.

I think though, that in Karl's case, it's more like: he's jealous that those without a penis can do what he was just too damn scared to ever try --even with his tiny peepee. 
I stand ready for these blow-hard righties to prove me wrong with a scan of some discharge papers.  In Karl's case, though, I don't think that he's ever even CLAIMED doing any military service!

As for his insults at gays: same thing.  I have my 7 years in Army units that Karl could never serve in if he tried.  Karl:  show us some record of you doing a job that a gay man or a woman could never do.

Welcome back, stranger.

[Yorkshire pud]

As always, Daddio, you are very perceptive.

I think though, that in Karl's case, it's more like: he's jealous that those without a penis can do what he was just too damn scared to ever try --even with his tiny peepee. 
I stand ready for these blow-hard righties to prove me wrong with a scan of some discharge papers.  In Karl's case, though, I don't think that he's ever even CLAIMED doing any military service!

As for his insults at gays: same thing.  I have my 7 years in Army units that Karl could never serve in if he tried.  Karl:  show us some record of you doing a job that a gay man or a woman could never do.

I'll echo Onan buddy. You've been missed.

[albrecht]

I think the point, at least mine, aside from homosexual insults etc (and why is being a homo an insult to leftists?) is that sure there are women who can be (and were) good soldiers but the reasoning behind this is not to benefit the country, or get the best military, but 1) for social engineering 2) personal reasons of some gals with something to prove (fine, use the same standards though) 3) to get more meat for the constant war policies. Gay insult stuff aside, nobody addresses that even CURRENT policy allows for different standards for women for basic recruiting, though I haven't seen any documents with regard to standards for the specialized units. Look at Army Regulation 600-9, if gender is "equal" why the differing standard between? Heck, using this logic why have age as a determining factor? Or actually disabled people. I demand wheel-chair accessible battlefields! That also is discrimination! Of course, this is silly. But in a culture that values "accommodation" and "diversity" over performance it is a logical path.

[qaddisin]

I think the point, at least mine, aside from homosexual insults etc (and why is being a homo an insult to leftists?)

You'd have to ask your man Karl. It seems to be his favorite insult to cast.

is that sure there are women who can be (and were) good soldiers but the reasoning behind this is not to benefit the country, or get the best military, but 1) for social engineering 2) personal reasons of some gals with something to prove (fine, use the same standards though) 3) to get more meat for the constant war policies.

Out of general curiosity, aren't you the same person that believes Jade Helm was practice for the implementation of unconstitutional martial law? If that's indeed the case, wouldn't you want a weaker military? Because if that military is going to be used against the citizenry, wouldn't you want it to be less effective?

[albrecht]

You'd have to ask your man Karl. It seems to be his favorite insult to cast.

Out of general curiosity, aren't you the same person that believes Jade Helm was practice for the implementation of unconstitutional martial law? If that's indeed the case, wouldn't you want a weaker military? Because if that military is going to be used against the citizenry, wouldn't you want it to be less effective?

Ha, maybe so, I haven't followed all the threads just noticed so much homosexual "insults" by Obama adherents and leftists, which I find odd because that is supposedly the chief cause to be championed and something to be lauded and admired. 

Re: Jade Helm, yes, well sort of tongue-in-cheek due to my FEMA Region deemed "hostile," though anytime the military operates domestically (and many times internationally) I have a problem with it. Not sure why our military need to train to "master the human domain" in English-speaking, semi-rural populations? Unless we are planning to invade Kent or something. But, since you asked, if it were up to me I would have no standing army, actually, well, at least a much smaller one made up by a general draft of all males between a certain age (religious or conscientious objectors can serve in other capacities but still must serve.) And very limited and for things like protecting our national borders, defending our waters, fighting piracy and illegal fishing, etc. Not defending other countries borders or getting involved in wars that don't directly effect us (or our allies in very special circumstances with much debate and a vote before.) Use our technological, nuclear, biological, and chemical, etc weapons/threats to dissuade foreign attacks. And in the case of a justified war that is necessary (authorized by vote of Congress) use any means deemed effective by our military to end it quickly and not abide international rules or public opinion to be "nice" or have limited rules of engagement that hurt our people. And, at a MINIMUM, treat our veterans at least as well as we treat illegals, as we currently do under the Obama Doctrine, (free health care, free legal advice, free temporary shelter, free education, free transportation, EBT cards etc to feed their children, etc.)

[Yorkshire pud]

I think the point, at least mine, aside from homosexual insults etc (and why is being a homo an insult to leftists?)

Where do you formulate your hypothesis? On the back of a beer mat? What makes you believe a) only 'leftists' (whatever they are) are insulted if they're called homo? B) they care if some blow hard gobby twat who regards Putin as someone to aspire to (as well as fancying him) calls them a homo/ faggot/ queer etc? It says far more about the purile little man than it does the objects of his 'insult'. I could mention also his use of 'girl' as a pejorative term, though to do so almost dignifies the sad little misogynist.

is that sure there are women who can be (and were) good soldiers but the reasoning behind this is not to benefit the country, or get the best military, but 1) for social engineering 2) personal reasons of some gals with something to prove (fine, use the same standards though) 3) to get more meat for the constant war policies. Gay insult stuff aside, nobody addresses that even CURRENT policy allows for different standards for women for basic recruiting, though I haven't seen any documents with regard to standards for the specialized units. Look at Army Regulation 600-9, if gender is "equal" why the differing standard between? Heck, using this logic why have age as a determining factor? Or actually disabled people. I demand wheel-chair accessible battlefields! That also is discrimination! Of course, this is silly. But in a culture that values "accommodation" and "diversity" over performance it is a logical path.

I think this was addressed previously. SF's recruits gain entry or don't by the selection of their peers who have to decide if said recruit would be trustworthy/ tough enough/ have the aptitude and so many other factors. There would be no question of lowering the entry level, because there isn't a 'level' that is made known to the recruits. That's the motivation to try as hard as possible. As they say to those who win selection in the SAS, and the tan beret:  " You've done the easy part; the hard part is keeping it". It isn't unknown for NCO's with ten or more years in the SAS to be RTU'd because they fucked up. You really think a raw recruit would get off lightly?

[albrecht]

Where do you formulate your hypothesis? On the back of a beer mat? What makes you believe a) only 'leftists' (whatever they are) are insulted if they're called homo? B) they care if some blow hard gobby twat who regards Putin as someone to aspire to (as well as fancying him) calls them a homo/ faggot/ queer etc? It says far more about the purile little man than it does the objects of his 'insult'. I could mention also his use of 'girl' as a pejorative term, though to do so almost dignifies the sad little misogynist.

I think this was addressed previously. SF's recruits gain entry or don't by the selection of their peers who have to decide if said recruit would be trustworthy/ tough enough/ have the aptitude and so many other factors. There would be no question of lowering the entry level, because there isn't a 'level' that is made known to the recruits. That's the motivation to try as hard as possible. As they say to those who win selection in the SAS, and the tan beret:  " You've done the easy part; the hard part is keeping it". It isn't unknown for NCO's with ten or more years in the SAS to be RTU'd because they fucked up. You really think a raw recruit would get off lightly?

You addressed this previously but still the question remains. If gender is "neutral," or as you leftist types say simply a matter of "self-identification" or social conditioning, and all that matters is performance and aptitude why are the INITIAL requirements, and training, not equal? Not for SF but just standard requirements, which anybody who eventually tries out for or becomes a member of more elite unit must get through? I refer you, once again:
http://www.apft-standards.com/maleheightandweight.html
http://www.apft-standards.com/femaleheightandweight.html
or this FAQ from your services:
http://www.army.mod.uk/join/Women-in-the-Army.aspx
"Men and women get the same high standard of training. The only difference is in fitness tests where targets are slightly different. "
and segregation!!? And what about the various BLTs etc? Maybe you need some more dorms based on gender identification? You really are behind the times!
"At an initial training centre you may have your own room or sleep in a single sex dormitory. After training it is usual to have your own room. Men and women have separate accommodation blocks, where they wash and sleep. But all other aspects of Army life, including eating and training, is "

[Yorkshire pud]

You addressed this previously but still the question remains. If gender is "neutral," or as you leftist types say simply a matter of "self-identification" or social conditioning,

Please point to where I've said that.

and all that matters is performance and aptitude why are the INITIAL requirements, and training, not equal? Not for SF but just standard requirements, which anybody who eventually tries out for or becomes a member of more elite unit must get through? I refer you, once again:
http://www.apft-standards.com/maleheightandweight.html
http://www.apft-standards.com/femaleheightandweight.html
or this FAQ from your services:
http://www.army.mod.uk/join/Women-in-the-Army.aspx
"Men and women get the same high standard of training. The only difference is in fitness tests where targets are slightly different. "
and segregation!!? And what about the various BLTs etc? Maybe you need some more dorms based on gender identification? You really are behind the times!
"At an initial training centre you may have your own room or sleep in a single sex dormitory. After training it is usual to have your own room. Men and women have separate accommodation blocks, where they wash and sleep. But all other aspects of Army life, including eating and training, is "

...is what?

And the thread is specifically about the US Seals. Not the greens.

[albrecht]

Please point to where I've said that.

...is what?

And the thread is specifically about the US Seals. Not the greens.

Sigh, to attempt to join the SEALS one must already be a member of the armed forces. Here are the Navy standards:
http://www.navy-prt.com/maleweight.html
http://www.navy-prt.com/femaleweight.html

Note that there are "corrections" also used:

THE OFFICIAL BCA WEIGHT, AND A MALE/FEMALE
CORRECTION FACTOR TO CALCULATE THE EQUIVALENT RUN TIME.  THE RUN TIME
WILL THEN BE SCORED USING THE RUN PERFORMANCE CHARTS (ACCOUNTING
FOR ALTITUDE, AGE, AND GENDER) CONTAINED IN OPNAVINST 6110.1H.

With regard to your first point I don't know if you specifically has spouted off those talking points but I won't search around. If you haven't, than I'm sorry. Though I have seen you use a lot of homosexual "insults" which I still find odd considering that homosexuals are "normal" and something to be praised and accommodated in every aspect of society, no matter the history or disruption that might cause.

[Yorkshire pud]

Sigh, to attempt to join the SEALS one must already be a member of the armed forces. Here are the Navy standards:
http://www.navy-prt.com/maleweight.html
http://www.navy-prt.com/femaleweight.html

Note that there are "corrections" also used:

THE OFFICIAL BCA WEIGHT, AND A MALE/FEMALE
CORRECTION FACTOR TO CALCULATE THE EQUIVALENT RUN TIME.  THE RUN TIME
WILL THEN BE SCORED USING THE RUN PERFORMANCE CHARTS (ACCOUNTING
FOR ALTITUDE, AGE, AND GENDER) CONTAINED IN OPNAVINST 6110.1H.

Yep I know SF recruits are drawn from the original units where the recruits apply for selection. BUT that's why they don' just apply; and why they go through incredible arduous selection tests, mentally and physically. That is why over 99% of those who apply don't get in. I understand the SAS allows two applications per candidate (if they fail first time) , but the SBS once only. No idea what the SEAL's and Delta force policy is.

With regard to your first point I don't know if you specifically has spouted off those talking points but I won't search around. If you haven't, than I'm sorry. Though I have seen you use a lot of homosexual "insults" which I still find odd considering that homosexuals are "normal" and something to be praised and accommodated in every aspect of society, no matter the history or disruption that might cause.

Not homosexual inusults to QK, simply drawing attention to his overly over the top attitude to homoexuals ( self loathing perchance) and his obvious hatred of women.

[NowhereInTime]

But no woman in Earth can do it

Having sex with you?

- the hardest most determined men on the planet have a hard time doing it

Yes, apparently having sex with you.

and they don't get periods or tampon breaks.

Thankfully you are well stocked up on tampons to help the other gals in a pinch.

[albrecht]

Yep I know SF recruits are drawn from the original units where the recruits apply for selection. BUT that's why they don' just apply; and why they go through incredible arduous selection tests, mentally and physically. That is why over 99% of those who apply don't get in. I understand the SAS allows two applications per candidate (if they fail first time) , but the SBS once only. No idea what the SEAL's and Delta force policy is.

Not homosexual inusults to QK, simply drawing attention to his overly over the top attitude to homoexuals ( self loathing perchance) and his obvious hatred of women.

http://qz.com/499618/the-us-marines-tested-all-male-squads-against-mixed-gender-ones-and-the-men-came-out-ahead/?utm_source=YPL
"Overall, the report says, all-male teams and crews outperformed mixed-gender ones on 93 out of 134 tasks evaluated. All-male teams were universally faster “in each tactical movement.”
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2394531-marine-corps-force-integration-plan-summary.html

[Yorkshire pud]

http://qz.com/499618/the-us-marines-tested-all-male-squads-against-mixed-gender-ones-and-the-men-came-out-ahead/?utm_source=YPL
"Overall, the report says, all-male teams and crews outperformed mixed-gender ones on 93 out of 134 tasks evaluated. All-male teams were universally faster “in each tactical movement.”
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2394531-marine-corps-force-integration-plan-summary.html

Which bit of 'selection' are you struggling with?

[West of the Rockies]

Albrecht, to me it appears that homophobic insults are pretty common with both sides. 

Ben, glad you're back!