The first two web links are not essential to understanding the content. What they lead to is enhanced content as you indicate. You should have understood the main theme of the story based on the title which informs as to the main subject. The problem here is your comprehension not the writing.
That's not garbage, that's a hot load of steaming feces. It's unreadable.
Really now? Lets examine that proposition.
How the fuck can something be needed now "just as it was" then, but also "more than ever"?
Based on this sentence it appears that it actually wasn't garbage, feces (steaming or not), or unreadable. You actually did manage to read it. The problem you have is comprehension, so lets tackle that. The main problem you seem to have is one dimensional thinking. Saying that something is needed then and now establishes the need in terms of time - it is needed in both times, the first dimension. That says nothing about the urgency of the need, the degree of need, or the second dimension. That is where the qualifier "now more than ever" comes it. It is a statement that the present need is greater than the past need. That is a simple but crucial concept you can see illustrated on the following graph where the vertical axis (P) represents the Priority of resource (X), and the horizontal axis (T) represents Time. As you can see there are two points on the T(time) axis, and two points on the P(priority) axis, at points X1 and X2. Point X2 is later in time and higher priority than point X1. Resource X is needed at both points X1 and X2 on axis T, but on axis P we find that point X2 is higher representing it is needed more which can be expresses as "now more than ever" as long as the highest point on axis P is also the furthest to the right on axis T.
^ . . . . . . . X2
|
| X1
P/T --->
If it's needed "just as it was" then it's needed to the same degree.
Only in the absence of any other qualifier, which I in fact supplied, to indicate that the need was present in both times, but there was a disparity in the degree of need. The present need is greater.
If you keep these hints in mind you may be less prone to confusion in future forum activity.
I've seen it before. It doesn't really change things. She wants to argue that if we give lots and lots of runway to women they can do as well as marginal men in strength. Don't you find this suggestive?
But there came a point when I could not persuade my body to perform. It wasn’t a matter of will but of pure physical strength. My mind wanted more, but my muscles quivered in failure after multiple attempts. I began to shiver as I got cold. I was told I could not continue
If she ends up with her wish, that men and women are judged by the exact same standards it will end up even worse for women than it is now. Take the "gender norming" out of the fitness tests and women's scores will plummet.
So she knows what she is talking about, and the other more experienced women that say this is an unnecessary bad idea don't? Or are their views not worth considering?
Bravery is no substitute for bravery and strength.
The whole exercise is a waste of time, there is no fundamental fact of human physiology that has changed since the last go around with this nonsense. This is purely an ideologically driven exercise to achieve wins in diversity while at the same time they throw away hard won victories on the battlefield through negligence and incompetence. I think we might have found an explanation for this policy.
Maybe.
You obviously have a source of knowledge. PI or SD?
Your comments have gone awry. Military spending in the US is dwarfed by social welfare spending. Add up welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and so on and the total is about 2X what is spent on the Military. That is before Obamacare. You numbers are way off.
Saddam was a buddy of the Soviet Union, Warsaw Pact, and People's Republic of China who are the ones that supplied the vast majority of his weapons. You should go back and review the history.
And thus we can close the chapter on the silly notion of "perpetual war" driven by business.
So you're claiming that the reduction of the Army to about 1/3 its peak size post WW2, along with major reductions in the size of the Navy, number of ships in the fleet, the Air Force, and the number of fighters and bombers has no practical effect on the military budget or spending? I think you've got the assignment of the value for "twit" wrong.
If you've already forgotten then you should be celebrating since it's news to you.
Did I miss your story?
Women in infantry tend to be very good soldiers, well motivated with only physical strength as a limitation.
What a pity that the infantry tends to rely on physical strength. Looks like reality has brutalized another fine theory.
How about you stop commenting on stuff you don't know shit about? That would be most things I gather.
Can I get the same deal from you? You already owe me one.
There are SpecOp units with women. Russia's 5th Spetsnaz, France's 11th Parachute Brigade, 13th Parachute Dragoon Reg., Israel's Sayeret Matkal. SpecOp Reconn units like Britains SRR, South Koreas 707th, and that's a far from complete list of units with much higher physical and psychological selection criteria than general infantry (and my military experience is 15 years out of date, more elite units have allowed women since then).
I think if you examine the presence of women in most special forces type units what you will generally find is that they didn't go through the same selection and training process as the primary members of the force. What often happens is that they are either in an attached element with different standards for entry, or in a headquarters or some other element. Many women have proven to be highly capable and resilient in those roles, but that isn't quite the same thing as having passed the same selection and training process as the men there. I'm glad they are there though as long as they are employed wisely.
I'm told that the Russians would have lost to the Germans if not for women (see WWII pictures of those large, heavy, hirsute, tattooed, pipe smoking tank crews), so perhaps coldfjords, um, somewhat biased views, only appear true for the general average of the USA.
Women did well as snipers, pilots, anti-aircraft, and many other duties for the Soviets. They were used as infantry at times, and they were removed from that role as soon as the Soviets could manage as I recall. The Soviet war effort, not to mention the US and UK war effort, would have been greatly weakened without the participation of women. That still doesn't mean that general purpose infantry is a good place to use them, and there are very few women that really have an interest in it.
No women have come close to passing the Marine Infantry Officer Course. A minor percentage of women have passed the Marine enlisted basic infantry course. Unfortunately that course is indeed only the basic level, and further skills and training are needed at the unit. Infantry combat units need to be able to fight a Fallujah, Hue, or Stalingrad for day after day, month after month. The 30 day experiments or 60 day schools used to justify this aren't necessarily going to reveal the point where the serious failures occur.
Why do you think an entire institution should be changed for a rare exception? You do realize there are many implications from that, don't you? Dimensions and weight of equipment and weapons, uniforms, allocations of supply, and much more.
And don't forget this - what is merely allowed in peacetime may become mandatory in a major war. Women haven't been included in the draft, but put them in the infantry now, and they may end up being disadvantaged cannon fodder in a future war without a choice. yay! equality! (When will men start having babies to rebuild a ravaged population?)
Perhaps you may want to ponder the words of these two female Marines.
Get Over It! We Are Not All Created Equal, by By Capt Katie Petronio
Did you miss the statement of where they were from and the quotation marks?
Unfortunately your only point to make a choice tends to be before that happens. There have been plenty of robberies that ended with the killing of the victim, sometimes en mass. You won't get a chance to write a note to your past self and suggest being armed on that particular night.
"Experience has proved that some people indeed know everything." -- Russell Baker
