BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

Keine Krausescheiße

On Fri, 06 May 2016 10:08:29 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 06 May 2016 06:21:20 -0400, Keine Krausescheiße
wrote:

On Thu, 05 May 2016 20:58:58 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 05 May 2016 15:53:55 -0400, Keine Krausescheiße
wrote:

Commentary by COL (Ret) Fred Dibella, USMA Class of '69 and former TAC of Company F2 at West Point:
"Ok, I've had all I can stomach. I'm done."

I am with you in spirit but this guy is deluded. If we actually
believed wars were won by "alpha males" we would never have had a
draft. Most of the true alpha males were on a football scholarship.
;-)

If that's so, then I'd settle for the 'second tier' alpha male. And, we want the Combat Arms loaded
with them.

here are plenty of reasons why we can't compare the "average man" with
the "average woman" but those american ninja warrior girls would kick
the average man's ass. I am all for a gender neutral military as long
as it is all based on identical standards and the women have no
problem squat ****ing in the jungle.

Now you're comparing the 'average man' to the 'ultimate' alpha female. Not fair.

It is not all of their cups of tea but some women would kill you
faster than a man would.
Gay sort of blurs over into all of that.

Again, not a fair comparison.

The main issue in both cases is inappropriate fraternization and
combat decisions based on personal affection over tactical necessity.

That's one of them.

I suppose it has to be pointed out that we fought the wars we had
before the 80s with drafted men. That was a very non selective
process. Granted, they didn't want Harry but usually the only
requirement was a reasonably healthy guy.

Do you reckon the results would have been the same if sex was not a criteria in the draft or the
subsequent specialty assignments?
--

Ban Krausescheiße-spouting narcissists...not guns!