Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,270 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,109,108
Pageviews Today: 1,500,874Threads Today: 349Posts Today: 7,008
01:19 PM


Back to Forum
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
Back to Thread
REPORT ABUSIVE REPLY
Message Subject US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta removes military ban on women in combat, opening thousands of front line positions
Poster Handle Don'tBeAfraid
Post Content
A draft is almost always a bad thing. It's only needed when there's a ton of ground forces needed.

The reality is the combat readiness of the average man or woman in the USA is abysmally low. Many Americans are obese. Most have no upper body strength, even young people.
[link to www.chicagomag.com]
[link to sportsmedicine.about.com]
[link to www.nytimes.com]

The new recuits are a product of video games and not hiking, canoeing, rock climbing, regular and disciplined physical education.
 Quoting: Don'tBeAfraid


well, initial induction and basic training are all a weeding-out process, and between the men and women, all tolled,
we should be able to muster enough combat troops to get the job done.
 Quoting: Judysnowflake


What job? A nation that uses its military has already lost.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32771247


Perhaps. There's some wisdom in that. War is expensive. That's something a ton of the executive and legislative branch have forgotten.

The military doesn't create wealth, it costs wealth by protecting wealth through security. If we put too many dollars in security and not enough in creating goods and services (as we are doing in the USA) then it's not capitalism, is it?

Using a sledgehammer to put in a nail is stupid. Using cluster bombs is stupid. You excise the tumor, not kill the entire body. Police actions are stupid. They foster more and more insurgency. It would be better to do a scorched earth policy as abhorrant as that is versus a sustained police action that costs a nation in soldiers, ancilary personnel, high taxes, materials, etc.

It ruins the infrastructure of an occupied nation. The goal might be total war, but occupations in history seldom worked. Assimilation worked for a long time in Roman times, but that was so far back and probably isn't effective anymore. To do that would be to absorb nations not create puppet regimes.

In those days they pillaged and took back all the wealth. That's one of the only ways in history that militaries paid for their actions. That disabled the occupied nation and eventual absorbed assimilated nation was so weakened as to not be able to muster soldiers.

Otherwise, in modern history in WW2, the USA sold armaments and ultimately made security worse by that process. It did however create wealth, but now is dooming us.
...
Bringing in women in this way, you have to ask, "Why now?" We're cutting Defense spending? We're lowering troop strengths. We're retaining less officers. Why now add women into a mix in such a decline?

One possibility is an anticipated World War scenario in which a lot of ground forces would be needed. That should make a lot of people shudder.
 
Please verify you're human:




Reason for reporting:



News








Proud Member Of The Angry Mob