How not to get pregnant in combat
We know that liberals always use the military as a social laboratory…. And women in combat is social experimentation. It’s where you try out new things that go against the norms….
Late yesterday afternoon… CNN’s… Don Lemon… said… “Men and women are different, we know that. How should the military handle pregnancy, for example, for women in combat units? Should a combat unit leader be able to direct a woman member not to get pregnant?”…
See, it doesn’t occur to him that pregnant female soldiers in combat units may not actually be a good thing. He just assumes it’s going to happen with women in combat, you’re gonna have women pregnant. And how are we gonna deal with that…?…
Women in combat. If you’re trying to please women who voted for you and fulfill the dreams of feminism, then fine. But in terms of making the military stronger, it actually doesn’t do that. Not in combat….
I was just checking the e-mail and people say, “You may not have heard about this, Rush, but women in the military already have this solved. There is a shot, an injection that they’re given that eliminates the menstrual cycle period for a whole year. So it’s never, ever a problem,” and that may well be true, but who knows what the side effects of that are? As I say, it’s a liberal laboratory, a social laboratory. Who knows what the effects of a shot are that eliminates the period for a year.
~ Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, discussing the obvious concern of deploying women in combat, January 25 (i.e., how not to get pregnant)
[Photo Credit: Belief Net]

Women in infantry combat makes zero sense and is unworkable. There are a few things for which upper body physical strength and lower body physical strength still matter and front-line infantry combat is one of them.
Women can’t be in front-line infantry combat alongside men for much the same reasons as most sports teams must be sex-segregated if there are to be any women’s sports. Women’s sports can be very entertaining but the top woman tennis player would be easily clobbered by the 100th in the world best male player.
In the modern military, women are extremely important and can serve well in MANY positions. Front-line infantry combat isn’t one of them.
STOP IT!!!! America must have a top-of-the-line military.
You know what, this decision is one of the few that I think the Obama admin has gotten right. (I think I can count those on one hand, actually.)
If there are some jobs women can’t physically do, fine. But you must give someone a chance to fail first before you run around claiming they can’t. Fair is fair. Otherwise, you don’t actually know what their performance would be. (And no, I am not remotely interested in what this might mean about male soldiers’ ~*FEELINGS*~. If you are man enough to kill people and break things for a living, you are man enough to get over yourself.)
wild – so lilling someone means having-to-get-over-yourself. What about the person killed. maybe, just maybe he/she/they should be cosnidered as people-who-want-to-live-too.
If this is going to be based on “fair is fair” then when women are directed to not get pregnant, men will have to be directed to not get anyone pregnant.
If she is getting shots, pills, etc. that mess with her healthy, functioning fertility, then his healthy, functioning fertility must be manipulated as well. Fair is fair.
After all, a woman cannot get pregnant without the involvement of a man.
Actually, Prax, I agree. The front lines is not the place for sex. So, yes, men on the front lines shouldn’t be getting anyone pregnant and should be so directed…if they are stupid enough to loose focus on whatever their mission is supposed to be. When you are out in a country whose name is classified hunting for a terrorist cell, any man who is thinking about boffing the girl on his team is clearly unable to focus on his job and he shouldn’t be on the front lines. (And no, “He would be able to focus if there wasn’t a woman there!” is not a good response. It is the responsibility of each individual soldier to keep their head in the game. Any failure to do so is their responsibility and theirs alone.)
This isn’t just about pregnancy!!!! Women on the front lines aren’t as effective! I don’t care if they are all sterile, they still shouldn’t be there.
And NO, that doesn’t mean they don’t have a place in the military — they do. It’s just not in front-line combat.
Denise, I 100% agree with you. This is absurd. My brother was in the USMC for decades and deployed to war zones many times. He always said women in the military was a joke especially the women who complained they wanted to be in combat. He said “If I’m shot and lying in the middle of a street with bullets whizzing by I don’t want some 5 foot 3, 130 pound woman trying to drag me to safety. My LIFE depends on it. I want a MAN there to have my back. I want a MAN who can physically drag me to safety.”
Sometimes our political correctness just kills common sense. Even if a woman could physically meet the same requirements as a man (which is doubtful) women EMOTIONALLY are NOT THE SAME AS MEN. This is just fact. It doesn’t mean women are less than men or that how we’re wired is “wrong”. But we are NOT the same as men on so many levels and why would I want to be like a man? I like my female body, my female emotions etc… It is time for feminists to get a grip. feminism should be about celebrating WOMEN. It shouldn’t be about trying to be men.
And once you open the door to women in combat just watch. There will be quotas. They will require a certain amount of women on the front line even if those women aren’t qualified. Even if they get themselves and their comrades killed. This is opening a pandora’s box here and men like my brother will be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness.
any man who is thinking about boffing the girl
??? Already in your mind, he’s the man, she’s the girl. ’Boffing’? How respectful of we ‘girls.’
I’m with Sydney and Denise. Women roles in the military are not in the front lines.
“Fraternizin’ goin’ on” is only one disruptive element. Believe it or not, chivalry is not dead, but in an intense combat situation it can get you or or your fellows that way.
Equal rights does not mean we must always strive for the equalizing of rights or trying to insure absolutely equal outcomes. Do we want all students to end up with a “C” average? Must everyone have the same income and lifestyle?
Combat requires optimal excellence. No experiment is necessary. Only common sense is.
Alice, I agree completely with everything you say. Make the physical requirements the same, absolutely. If women can do the job, I say let them do the job. It’s a job we desperately need qualified and competent people in. A woman I went to high school with attended West Point and graduated as only the second woman in the school’s history to serve as First Captain, a position which (in addition to a lot of other criteria) requires physical excellence. We would have been quite fortunate, as a country, to have her in a leadership combat role over the last few years, I believe.
I was a lifeguard for years. I am 5’0″ and maybe 120lbs (I say it’s all muscle…lol) but I could get a man more than twice my weight out of the pool. Now I work a very physical job for a living, often as the only woman on the crew. It’s not the same as being in the army at all, but the point is the same. I passed the physical requirements and went through the training. I was as qualified for the job as any guy, regardless of my gender. So I have the job.
The terrain of modern warfare is so starkly different than how things used to be that the line between combat and non-combat roles is blurred anyway, especially in military police units; this just formalizes the reality that many women in the military already live with. Woman are essentially already serving in combat positions. We’re just making it official.
This isn’t just about pregnancy!!!! Women on the front lines aren’t as effective!
I’ve seen some pretty ineffective dudes in the military, too.
My brother was in the USMC for decades and deployed to war zones many times. He always said women in the military was a joke especially the women who complained they wanted to be in combat. He said “If I’m shot and lying in the middle of a street with bullets whizzing by I don’t want some 5 foot 3, 130 pound woman trying to drag me to safety. My LIFE depends on it. I want a MAN there to have my back. I want a MAN who can physically drag me to safety.”
Then get a bigger woman who can do it. Requirements are requirements, and they shouldn’t change based on gender. But I think women who CAN physically drag a man to safety should have every opportunity a man has to be in combat.
I suppose if a woman can fulfill the tests and obligations of the role she should be allowed the chance. However, I can see where everyone’s coming from about the physical demands and that IN GENERAL women aren’t built for that. We women have quite a bit to offer society. We don’t have to do everything men do to prove that, nor do men have to do everything women do. We all have our strengths and talents. Let’s celebrate and play those up rather than trying to outdo the other sex. We aren’t made all the same (each human being is unique), so why should we all try to BE the same?
But Xalisae, what about the politicians who then say “Well you need X number of women in combat.” Even though there might not be x number of women who are as big and strong as a man!
There is always quotas with these types of things. And it never bodes well. In the name of “equality” and “inclusivity” we will be putting American lives at risk.
The nature of men and women are different. From a practical point of view, war kills people and men are far and away the most fatalities.
After the war, populations need to be replenished and you need much fewer men than women to increase the population.
The nature of women is to nurture because of their ability to bring forth new life.
We already have problems with women getting pregnant while on ship deployment even with all the rules and regulations against sexual activity while at sea. There are no miracle conceptions – all by the normal means when a man and woman get together. The longer at sea, the better they appear, of course that goes both ways.
The consequences if you want women to have access to every aspect as the man will be to eliminate all sexual crimes. If there is nothing special about a woman’s body, then why would she still be singled out by antiquated and bigoted laws?
I was a lifeguard in my younger years too. Being a distance runner, swimmer and weight lifter, I was in great shape and could beat the males my age who did not spend equal time working out. Yes, they talked big and yes I proved some of them wrong. However, I was not foolish enough to take on the guys who spent as much time as I did working out.
Swimming with a large body in water and pulling it out of the water is much different than dragging or carrying dead weight across land.
I have no doubt that there are some women who can physically do the same as some men. But on the whole, men are just physically stronger than women.
But Alexandra,
I don’t think dragging someone who is FLOATING IN WATER (even if fully-clothed) and who may be unconscious/semi-conscious can be compared to trying to drag someone who is conscious/semi-conscious- who is in FULL MILITARY GEAR..all while being fired upon.
I’m 5’0 also, and pretty strong myself (I have the biceps to prove it ;) ),
“There is a shot, an injection that they’re given that eliminates the menstrual cycle period for a whole year.”
But Xalisae, what about the politicians who then say “Well you need X number of women in combat.” Even though there might not be x number of women who are as big and strong as a man!There is always quotas with these types of things. And it never bodes well. In the name of “equality” and “inclusivity” we will be putting American lives at risk.
I disagree with lowering requirements or setting quotas. I don’t see why it would imply that I agreed with quotas and the dumbing down of requirements just because I think that women who have the same physical capabilities should be given the same opportunities.
Eh. Disagreeing with both parties is never a very popular opinion around here anyway, though. XD
“Denise, I 100% agree with you. This is absurd. My brother was in the USMC for decades and deployed to war zones many times. He always said women in the military was a joke especially the women who complained they wanted to be in combat. He said “If I’m shot and lying in the middle of a street with bullets whizzing by I don’t want some 5 foot 3, 130 pound woman trying to drag me to safety. My LIFE depends on it. I want a MAN there to have my back. I want a MAN who can physically drag me to safety.””
That’s weird. If I were lying in a war zone I would want whoever is physically capable to save me, I don’t think I would care about their genitalia.
I agree with X. If a woman can pass the same tests and requirements that are in place for men, I see no reason why those women can’t serve.
“The consequences if you want women to have access to every aspect as the man will be to eliminate all sexual crimes. If there is nothing special about a woman’s body, then why would she still be singled out by antiquated and bigoted laws?”
What in the world do you even mean by this? Do you think that laws against sex crimes only apply to female victims because women are “special” or something? And if women are treated equally to men rape shouldn’t be illegal or something? I have no idea what you are trying to say.
As Jack and xalisae have said, equality means equality. The same bar should be met by everyone across the board, male or female.
Already in your mind, he’s the man, she’s the girl. ’Boffing’? How respectful of we ‘girls.’
Would you prefer boink? Or horizontal tango? Hippity-dippity? As far as slang words for sex go, boff is just about the least objectionable out there. And I presume, from your objection to my use of the words “woman” and “girl” pretty interchangeably in my post that you have never referred to soldiers as “boys” in uniform?
Come on, Prax. You know I’m all about respecting women. Which means women should have the same opportunities as men. Everywhere. Even in the military. Equal opportunities is not a guarantee of equal outcomes, and that’s fine. But nobody deserves to have a door shut in her face just because she was born with the awful curse of a vagina. Whether that door has camo on it or not.
As Jack and xalisae have said, equality means equality. The same bar should be met by everyone across the board, male or female
I don’t know what to think about this. Will Arianna, my granddaughter (due date May 5, 2013) have to register for selective service someday? I also wonder how proponents of women in combat will feel when young women start coming home in body bags.
Xalisae, I didn’t say you agreed with quotas. I am pointing them out because it was something I wanted your opinion on (if you had considered it at all). I am saying that quotas WILL be the unintended consequence. Take affirmative action and how quotas have been implemented.
Young men are already coming home in body bags. Is that less tragic? Young women are already coming home in body bags too, in point of fact. If a woman chooses to put her life on the line for her country and does die in fact, you dishonor her sacrifice by saying she didn’t deserve the right to make it.
“I don’t know what to think about this. Will Arianna, my granddaughter (due date May 5, 2013) have to register for selective service someday? I also wonder how proponents of women in combat will feel when young women start coming home in body bags.”
I don’t think Selective Service should exist, to be honest. But yeah, women and men should both have to sign up for it. The ones who can’t hack it, male or female, can serve in non-combat roles.
And I don’t get what’s so much worse about women coming home in body bags. Not to pick on you, phillymiss. I just don’t like that line of thinking. Men and women are supposedly of equal importance, it shouldn’t be less tragic for some boy to be blown up than a girl.
Jack, you are missing the point. Obviously if you were injured in combat you would want SOMEONE to save you but what if that meant there wasn’t a man nearby to save you because they gave that spot to a petite woman. And what if that woman was a petite woman who valiantly tried and then valiantly died next to you because she wasn’t ABLE to pull you to safety?
You all are saying “If the woman can meet the same requirements then why not?” but you know that won’t be the case! Even for joining the military the requirements are “dumbed down” for women. Women do NOT have to run the same amount of miles or do the same amount of chin-ups etc… as the men. You know they won’t require women to have the same physical capabilities as men to be in combat and that will be the death of soldiers and marines like my brother. They will have quotas just like every other thing the government meddles with to create “diversity” and such.
Aside from physical ability there are other considerations but if you’ve never been in combat you might not get it. Women and combat just don’t mesh.
Count me as one of the disenchanted. Quite apart from the questions of logistics (Are women fit? Will they hurt esprit de corps? etc.) I am rather perplexed that any group excluded from combat would want to be included.
Personally, I see war as analogous to abortion in the case of ectopic pregnancy to save the life of the mother. It might be necessary, but it’s still a horrible tragedy that results in death. I would hate to be the doctor who has to deal with an ectopic pregnancy. But serving in combat is even worse – you not only kill, but might get killed yourself, or at least horrifically injured. For thousands of years, women have traditionally been excluded from taking on this nightmarish role. Why women would actually want to join the nightmare is a mystery to me.
Butnobody deserves to have a door shut in her face just because she was born with the awful curse of a vagina.
Like this is almost exactly what I said, Alice. Wow.
Quite apart from the questions of logistics (Are women fit? Will they hurt esprit de corps? etc.) I am rather perplexed that any group excluded from combat would want to be included.
Okay, so you don’t understand. That’s okay. But keeping all the women who do get it out just because it isn’t for you is wrong on a pretty big scale. I don’t understand why anyone would want to be a professional chef. It’s miserable, slaving over the preparations, dishing up food that half the people you serve it to won’t like or even completely understand. That doesn’t give me the right to say no red-headed people can be chefs, and that they shouldn’t complain because it doesn’t even make sense for them to want to. Not understanding why someone wants to do something is not, by itself, a good reason to prevent them from doing it.
sigh. As I noted more than once in my post, no, dragging a full-grown man out of water (not just in water) is not THE SAME AS dragging a man across a desert. As I already said, the POINT is the same. I met (and meet) the physical standards of my job, standards that some men and women don’t meet. I therefore had access to the job. Lifeguarding IS NOT THE SAME AS being in the army but it is a job that relies on the physical strength, fitness, and training of the person doing it, and yet we do not restrict it to people MORE LIKELY to have the appropriate strength and fitness.
No one is saying that “equality means being the same” or “women have to do the same things as men to be equal” or whatever with that crap. People are saying, if a woman can meet the standards, why not let her serve her country to the same extent? I don’t support separate standards for combat soldiers and I have not heard anyone call for quotas.
Don’t physical standards already differ between the genders just to get into the service? I don’t believe women are meeting the exact same standards as men from the get-go. Correct me if I am wrong.
If a woman can meet all of the exact same standards that a man can to be in a combat unit, more power to her. The fact remains, that the average woman is not as strong or fast as the average man. Just because you have not heard from anyone calling for quotas, doesn’t mean this won’t be a consequence, especially considering our current administration.
I strongly question anything that Obama supports; I have found him to always have ulterior motives.
What about these questions: How should pregnancy be handled in combat units? Should a military leader be able to command a woman in a combat unit not get pregnant? Should women in combat units be forced to get bc shots?
Alice, you can’t compare combat to cooking. It’s one thing to have your food disliked. It’s quite another to violently kill other humans. War is not like any other vocations – as I said, one of the few things that is actually somewhat analogous is aborting to save the life of the mother.
I hate that men have to kill on the battlefield. Every man who is brutally slain by advanced guns and weaponry was once some mother’s baby boy. Many have wives and children, now widowed and fatherless. Those who survive are especially prone to PTSD. And many wars are not even just wars. And even just wars are tragedies of colossal scale. Throughout history, women have had the honor of bringing new life into the world, and men have had the soul-scarring task of ending life on the battlefield. So yes, I am puzzled by desire for combat, and no, I do not think it’s anything like not understanding why a redhead would want to cook.
Alice, you can’t compare combat to cooking.
I’m not. I’m comparing my lack of understanding of one desire to your lack of understanding of another. It’s okay that you don’t get why someone would want to be a soldier. You don’t have to, and no one is going to try and force you to. That’s a perfectly acceptable place to be. It’s not okay to say that since you don’t want this, or understand why anyone would, that those people who do understand it should not be allowed to be soldiers. It takes people, men and women, of all stripes to make the world work. You aren’t going to understand the desires of every woman out there. Your failure to understand those desires is not a good reason to try to undermine them.
“How should pregnancy be handled in combat units?”
The same way any non-mortal, temporarily disabling condition is handled when a man has it, I suppose. Don’t men in combat units get appendicitis and have to have surgery, blow out their knees and have to get them reconstructed, etc, etc?
“Should a military leader be able to command a woman in a combat unit not get pregnant? Should women in combat units be forced to get bc shots?”
No, and no. I think female combatants (or just women in the military in general, whether in combat units or not) are responsibile for their own fertility. Women aren’t stupid, if they want to serve and be a part of a combat unit I’m sure they can be abstinent, get bc shots, etc, if they wish to.
“You all are saying “If the woman can meet the same requirements then why not?” but you know that won’t be the case! Even for joining the military the requirements are “dumbed down” for women. Women do NOT have to run the same amount of miles or do the same amount of chin-ups etc… as the men. You know they won’t require women to have the same physical capabilities as men to be in combat and that will be the death of soldiers and marines like my brother. They will have quotas just like every other thing the government meddles with to create “diversity” and such. ”
Well, I’m not really in the habit of basing my opinions on whether things are right or not based on a fear that someone might take it too far. It’s right that women get the same opportunity to join combative units of the military based on the same standards that men have. Some politicians might argue for “quotas” or not, which I think is wrong, but it doesn’t change my opinion that women should have the same opportunity to meet the physical standards.
“Aside from physical ability there are other considerations but if you’ve never been in combat you might not get it. Women and combat just don’t mesh.”
It’s just your opinion though. It was some people’s opinions that gays being “out” in the military didn’t mesh, but it hasn’t seemed to cause any problems, other than some homophobes whining about it.
Oh come on JAck. Spoken by someone who has NEVER BEEN in the military. My brother has been there. Saying that open homosexuality is detrimental to the military isn’t “homophobic”. Care to state your point without baseless accusations and calling names? You probably can’t which is why you’re stooping so low.
You should ALWAYS think about the unintended consequences Jack (how far they’ll take it with quotas etc…) not thinking about unintended consequences is why we have corporations cutting hours so they don’t have to comply with obamacare etc… did no one think of this when they were drafting the bill? ALWAYS think about how far they’ll take it. Because it is life and death for some poor soldier in combat.
When asked about women in combat an israeli general said
“We do not do what you do in the United States because, unfortunately, we have to take war seriously.”
You aren’t going to understand the desires of every woman out there. Your failure to understand those desires is not a good reason to try to undermine them.
If those desires put their own and others’ lives at risk of harm or death, as in war and abortion, that a good enough reason for me to undermine them.
My brother’s in the military, too. And he said, re: gays being out that he didn’t especially like it, but what he liked a lot less was the desire for the Obama admin to keep talking about it after the orders came in. Simply put, the military’s job is to be soldiers, not worry about the sex organs or orientations of the people in it. If you want a soldier to do something, you order them to. And they do it. All Obama had to do was say, “This is how it is now. Deal.” The whole military would then say, “Yes sir!” They’d gripe and moan and whine to themselves, but they’d do it. And that’s how things were sorted with everyone I spoke to this last Thanksgiving (these guys being at Ft. Bragg, either in training for or just finished training for SOCOM).
Apparently the admin learned. They said, “Women are no longer restricted to certain jobs. This is how it is now. Deal.” Because that’s how soldiers roll. And if they have a problem, there are two words for it they will all swear by: Ranger up. Don’t moan, don’t whine, don’t pitch a fit about how “But she’s a guuurll!” Pick up your ruck, hit the range, whatever, but get back to work and stop griping about it.
Problem solved, problem stayin’ solved, Rangers lead the way.
“Oh come on JAck. Spoken by someone who has NEVER BEEN in the military. My brother has been there. Saying that open homosexuality is detrimental to the military isn’t “homophobic”. Care to state your point without baseless accusations and calling names? You probably can’t which is why you’re stooping so low. ”
You aren’t in the military either. I get my opinions talking to people in the military just like you do. Just because we came to different conclusions (and your brother’s opinions are not shared by every vet at all, btw), doesn’t mean that mine aren’t valid.
You know I don’t use “homophobe” lightly, but most of the comments I have seen surrounding gays in the military are homophobic. Not anyone having a personal moral problem with homosexuality (which isn’t necessarily homophobic at all) or having rational reasons (haven’t seen any) for barring openly gay people from serving. It’s stuff like using “morale” and “unit cohesion” as an excuse for barring someone with a particular lifestyle that isn’t even relevant to the work at hand, I do consider homophobic. The dudes I know who were in the armed forces told me they didn’t care if they knew someone was gay, the only issue was with people who were uncomfortable with gay people, they were the ones causing problems. Which is no more of an excuse to bar openly gay people than it was to bar and segregate black and other minority soldiers years ago. But anyway, it wasn’t an argument I wanted to have, just expressing my opinion that in a few decades I think that this will all be a moot point, the military won’t collapse from letting qualified women in combat roles, no more than openly gay soldiers ruined anything.
“You should ALWAYS think about the unintended consequences Jack (how far they’ll take it with quotas etc…) not thinking about unintended consequences is why we have corporations cutting hours so they don’t have to comply with obamacare etc… did no one think of this when they were drafting the bill? ALWAYS think about how far they’ll take it. Because it is life and death for some poor soldier in combat.”
That’s somewhat a good point, but sometimes things are right, and you can’t stop yourself from doing something that is right because someone else might try to take something good and do something wrong with it. Pain pills are important for those who need them, but addicts can use them to destroy their lives and kill themselves. That doesn’t mean we get rid of pain pills, that means we figure out how to lessen the bad possibilities.
If I had the choice of having ten men who passed the men’s standards to get into the military to protect my property from attack or ten women who passed the women’s standards to get into the military to protect my property from attack, I know who I’d choose.
I know who checks out the bumps in the night in my home. I know who checked out these night bumps when I was a kid. I know who goes after the bats, mice and spiders in most (not all) homes that have both a mom and a dad. I know what gender enjoys hunting (on the whole) more, what gender plays violent video games (on the whole) more, what gender is better at football and extreme sports (on the whole), and what gender is jailed more often for violence. I think I know what gender more often hunted the woolly mammoths and fought off the saber tooth tigers.
Women aren’t even meeting the same standards as men to get into the military in the first place so the argument that if all things are equal is silly to begin with. So Ranger Up and admit it.
Be careful what you wish for.
Rangers? Isn’t Fort Carson BEAUTIFUL!?!?!?!!! I miss it. ;_;
Praxedes, if you could have either Xalisae or me defend you from an attack, who would you choose? I know who I would choose lol. ;)
Carson probably is. Unfortunately, I’ve never been able to go. Sis and her husband are there, though, so maybe I can get out there at some point. Bragg isn’t. Fayetteville is the fugliest town ever. And now bro and his family have been PCSd to Ft. Lewis, which is on the other side of the continent! Freaking stupid army can’t do geography! *whine* *grumble*
The “problem solved…” bit comes from Action Figure Therapy, which is shockingly irreverent and swear-heavy (and occasionally blasphemous, so I don’t really follow it). That line was really popular amongst the Fayetteville contingent, though. And it’s handy. :D
LMAO!
You already know that X would be getting all the weapons and you would be cooking the meals for her and the rest of her crew. She would, I’m confident, make sure that you were chief bottle washer.
Xalisa2016.
No one would allow me to be the cook, lol, people would be mad I wouldn’t cook them meat. ;) Bottle washer sounds good lol.
Aww, Jack. Our resident “insecurity” guard. ;)
Didn’t realize they were moving Rangers out of Carson. They’ve been there forever, and when we were there, that was their “big thing”. But, the military can’t do math, either. Right before we left, they moved a TON of dudes up to Carson from Hood, and it was a clusterfuge of epic proportions. When we first got there, you could book a doctor appointment for your sick kid within the week, easily. By the time we were moving out and after the Hood people came in, not only could you NOT see the doctor the same month you were sick, but good luck finding anywhere to park for any reason whatsoever. That was my first inkling of what Obamacare would bring. When the government is handing things, they inevitably screw it up. You’d think they’d realize that a base meant for x amount of people/families couldn’t accommodate x, y, and z…even if you build them all houses first. 9_9
I’m blushing over here, Prax and Jack! Wait…are soldiers supposed to blush? Are women supposed to blush when they’re told they’d make good soldiers?! I’M SO CONFUSED!!!
XD
Lol Hans, I’ll have you know I am an excellent security guard, even with my pacifist tendencies. It’s much more important to be good at defusing situations to be a guard. Which is surprising easily to do when you are allowed to carry a gun. :D
Still, you vegetarians would have no shot armwrestling x or myself! ;)
Hey, don’t forget I was a street kid, lol I didn’t survive that being sweet and weak. :D
*whispers* but yeah X and probably you could totally break my arm wrestling lol.
(whispers) I think I’d only come out second place! :)
Hey, you two are also combat veterans of a sort, compared to me!
lol, warzone marriage.
“When asked about women in combat an israeli general said
“We do not do what you do in the United States because, unfortunately, we have to take war seriously.””
U-104, could you elaborate on this quote? Israel already allows women in combat positions.