View Full Version : A (uneducated) Public speaks about the Barret .50 cal rifle and CBU's
TankBuster
23-01-07, 14:21
Recentley, one of the cadets in our ROTC began speaking about how inhumane many military weapons are. On her list were napalm, CBU's (Cluster Bomb units) the Barret 50 cal Sniper rifle and (This is THE dumbest one) Flash Bang grenades. After listening to her Bulls**t for half an hour, I finally left. Since none of these weapons are even remotely inhumane (except maybe the napalm) it is hard to figure out why she went nuts on them. Any one else think of a good reason that these are "inhumane"? I cant
Drone_pilot
23-01-07, 14:40
WTF and she's a Cadet?
I can see why the Barret could be classed as inhumane, because when it hits A Terrorist in the head it make their eye's water.solaf
Did she list any humane weapons?
Weapons are built and issued for one reason and one reason only, to kill. Thats the nature of war. They are the tools of the trade for any soldier, sailor or airman and as such, they require the best to carry out the task at hand and it seems to me that she has listed the best tools of the trade.
I would have done the same, walked out.
WTF and she's a Cadet?
Makes me think that she maybe in the wrong job :eek:
TankBuster
23-01-07, 15:20
Did she list any humane weapons?
Weapons are built and issued for one reason and one reason only, to kill. Thats the nature of war. They are the tools of the trade for any soldier, sailor or airman and as such, they require the best to carry out the task at hand and it seems to me that she has listed the best tools of the trade.
I would have done the same, walked out.
No I listed the Humane weapons, including tear gas, and non-leathal rounds, but to no avail (She was probalby on the period anyway)
This is why I don't believe women should be in combat. This young lady is in the ROTC program for all the wrong reasons. She may be a leader, but she will never be a leader of men in combat. War, aside from the political complications, is about killing your enemy before he kills you. There is no place for her kind of sentiments or emotions, it gets good men killed. It may be time for her to be counseled about why she is in ROTC, the uniform maybe ? This kind of reminds me of why the National Guard, back in the sixties, had a waiting list to join up. Back in my war, the National Guard was a safe haven for those that desired to wear the uniform, without putting their butt in harm's way. Semper Fi
Back in my war, the National Guard was a safe haven for those that desired to wear the uniform, without putting their butt in harm's way. Semper Fi
Brings to mind a certain pilot??
I quite agree with your sentiments mate all joking aside. This person should be shown the door!
Zofo,
Yes indeed, a perfect example. Alas, the alternative, someone who inflates his own military record, is even more despicable to me. And like I said before, I don't believe women should be in combat and that means also that I do have grave reservations about a female Commander-In-Chief.
Semper Fi
TankBuster
24-01-07, 15:20
Brings to mind a certain pilot??
I quite agree with your sentiments mate all joking aside. This person should be shown the door!
I agree, however, we instead planned a trip to Eglin Airforce Base to see some of the Weapons facilities and to look at some of the new, less destructive (and probably less exciting) weapons that they are cooking up. We actually asked her if she wanted to be in the military, but she insisted that she did.
I came close to getting busted a rank when i said "If your willing to put yourself into the military, you need to understand that war isn't a bunch of flower pickin'. It's about finding and killing the enemy before he gets you, and to do that you need weapons that are MEANT TO KILL! so quit whining and get some common sense!"
I would be careful about picking on the National Guard as a place for draft dodgers, the initial unit that provided LRRPS was Indiana National Guard and the 116th Engineer Bn came from the Idaho National Guard. I knew there were other units as well. Several FAC and transport pilots I knew were NG or reserve, my cousin for one. For an officer it was no guarantee of anything.
re: the young lady afraid of "unhumane weapons," she is obviously in the wrong line of intended work, the object of war is to hurt people and break things. The only way it is humane is if you can beat your enemy into a bloody pulp very quickly.
Rotorwash
I would be careful about picking on the National Guard as a place for draft dodgers, Rotorwash
I only pick on the very well documented cases. Interesting to find SF coming from the Guard though. How did that work, not enough regulars?
The initial LRRPs were Rangers, not SF. IN fact, the LRRPs that worked at division level were generally not SF. The ops that SF worked on were largely across the border ops. I just woke up from a nap and am a little fuzzy, someone else might shed some light on the issue. Or I can when I wake up.
There are some SF units that were NG. At least one, maybe two groups were set up during the Kennedy years. The 19th Group has units in Utah and West Virginia, the WV units were just recently in Afghanistan.
Rotorwash
Unregistered
08-02-07, 07:59
I could only guess as to what you were thinking but what most of these things have in common is they have all been baned by internatonal treaty at on time or another. Incendeary and percution devices as well as 50 cal or greater wepons are anti-equipment wepons by treaty. Cluster bombs leave huge amounts of unexploded ordance laying about.
Dear unregistered,
Your statement may or may not be true. The idea that each of these weapons has at one time been outlawed by treaty does not expose the destructiveness of the weapons or that those who use them are villains, but the weakness of treaties. To subscribe to the provisions of a treaty which the other signatories have rejected is paramount stupidity.
Rotorwash
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: xenasings; AAh! Women in combat/military, what a topic, I can say from serving with them for 22 years, some do belong, however, I've served with men as well who'd you'd end up going WTF!!!! once you saw and or heard their thoughts on being in the service. My responce was almost always, Get Out Now!! I had men saying they were going to refuse to fight if we ever went to war, even on a destroyer!! :eek: :eek:. Yet, I served in field with women who "Hot Bunked" in my tent and got nor asked for special treatment and were far from PC. Of note, none of these Gung Ho Women ever had Rugrats. I'm mixed on the idea, I guess my bottom line, If they want to be in. then act like it. That, I say applies to both sexes.
IMHO, Bob sal;
Bombardier
05-03-07, 00:00
Dear unregistered,
Your statement may or may not be true. The idea that each of these weapons has at one time been outlawed by treaty does not expose the destructiveness of the weapons or that those who use them are villains, but the weakness of treaties. To subscribe to the provisions of a treaty which the other signatories have rejected is paramount stupidity.
Rotorwash
Hoorah ! as I have heard some of my Ameicans colleagues say. I believe it means I agree with your comment RW (Y)
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: xenasings; AAh! Women in combat/military, what a topic, I can say from serving with them for 22 years, some do belong, however, I've served with men as well who'd you'd end up going WTF!!!! once you saw and or heard their thoughts on being in the service. My responce was almost always, Get Out Now!! I had men saying they were going to refuse to fight if we ever went to war, even on a destroyer!! :eek: :eek:. Yet, I served in field with women who "Hot Bunked" in my tent and got nor asked for special treatment and were far from PC. Of note, none of these Gung Ho Women ever had Rugrats. I'm mixed on the idea, I guess my bottom line, If they want to be in. then act like it. That, I say applies to both sexes.
IMHO, Bob sal;
I am the same, mixed feelings as some of the male soldiers I have worked with were more of what we expect from women, than women themselves :eek:
Well said, rotorwash.
My own opinion about women in the military is that women should be in support roles only. This is not to say that women aren't welcome or needed or that some women aren't as capable or more capable as some men. And I know that there are women that are very good pilots, but what happens when this pilot is shot down or captured ? As a combat veteran, I know that women will be and are at a distinct disadvantage in combat, for themselves and for those that would serve with them. This may not be politically correct, but it is the truth. Right or wrong, we Americans are of a mind set that predetermines our relationships with the opposite sex. Not only should a woman not be exposed to the horrors of combat but if she were present during combat operations, her presence would cause an unacceptable distraction. The risk factor to herself and those men who felt an obligation to protect her or worse, to carry her load, mentally or physically, will only cause more casualties. Anyone who has experienced close combat knows that women do not belong in this perimeter unless there is absolutely no other option. Semper Fi
Despite my own postive relations with women in the military, I must Co-sign on to what 03Fox2/1 says in regards to combat arms roles. I'm fairly modern and sometimes even PC in my views on women, but combat is a place where "Primal Instinct" is the norm, and under that mind set, women become a thing to be protected at all costs. IIRC the Israelies had this very same problem come up in during their brush with female combat arms, in where a cut off unit comprised of women, caused undo casualities, because the men wouldn't leave them there. If the unit had been male, they would have been left. The unit never made it despite the males efforts and blood spilt BTW.
Cheers, Bob sal;
Despite my own postive relations with women in the military, I must Co-sign on to what 03Fox2/1 says in regards to combat arms roles. I'm fairly modern and sometimes even PC in my views on women, but combat is a place where "Primal Instinct" is the norm, and under that mind set, women become a thing to be protected at all costs. IIRC the Israelies had this very same problem come up in during their brush with female combat arms, in where a cut off unit comprised of women, caused undo casualities, because the men wouldn't leave them there. If the unit had been male, they would have been left. The unit never made it despite the males efforts and blood spilt BTW.
Cheers, Bob sal;
Bob, I have read part of the issue of women in combat arms, is not a women issues, but a man's issue. Those cultural rules that men were raised on, on how a man is suppose to treat a woman. I don't think we can hold women accountable for that.
As you mentioned earlier, if a person is going to be in the military then act like it. Other words be 100% soldier. Women can be very effective combat soldiers, but the majority of women are not men. How we evaluate women or men can create a lot of fog on this issue. Do we use a male criteria, or unisex, or some other type. Is this cultural or physical, or biochemical or??..
Do we deal with the ALL women, or a specific women. I have met women out there, who can out perform me in the criteria as a Marine. So Specifically is one view as a group or as a individual. Should we limit those women, who can hold up and exceed in the current criteria for a male soldier? or... Obvious this issue still eludes me as to some meaningful conclusion.
I don't think we should "water down" the criteria to be a soldier just for a specific group of people nor should exclude a individual merely because they are a member of a group that generally does not do well in that job.
Hollis,
I agree it's hot topic no matter, and I beleive more correctly an issue for the nations which choose to put women into combat roles to maul over and debate. There is certainly a "mens issue" component to the debate. My beleifs posted earlier are my realistic feelings on the matter. Personally, there are women I would go into harm's way with, no question. But, I worry that we will dilute the standards in our militaries to make political points. I have seen it happen, and even when both sexes have protested it. (We lost good women soldiers over it. They went back to support trades.) I think that there will come a time that mixed sex militaries will become the norm but "we" have a ways to go yet. For it to work properly I think societies attitude must change, and to the point that more than 10-20% of recruits are women.
As I age I'm more and more inclined to believe we should move towards a "Starship Troopers" model of society, if you needed military service to be a citizen, then I beleive you would see the sex ratio for recruitment even up.
But I digress...............................gren;
Bob sal;
Bob, No kidding about politicos. The can really make things much worse. Even though the vast number of jobs in the Military is not "combat role", having been in combat is part of the promotion culture. No being in combat can automatically exclude a person from promotions. That means if we have a class of people in the military who are prohibited by law from combat, their military careers will/can suffer. That was one of the arguments to allow women into combat roles, at least in active support (Chopper pilot, etc).
I don't know if "Starship troopers" style will happen. A lot of changes in our own culture will have to occur first. Also one side solution is a national alternative service with similar benefits of the military. Services such as, National health facilities, National Parks, urban renewal, etc. that might help to add to a more positive sense of national idenity for US citizens.
I am glad it is a decission I don't have to make.
This is why I don't believe women should be in combat. This young lady is in the ROTC program for all the wrong reasons. She may be a leader, but she will never be a leader of men in combat. War, aside from the political complications, is about killing your enemy before he kills you. There is no place for her kind of sentiments or emotions, it gets good men killed. It may be time for her to be counseled about why she is in ROTC, the uniform maybe ? This kind of reminds me of why the National Guard, back in the sixties, had a waiting list to join up. Back in my war, the National Guard was a safe haven for those that desired to wear the uniform, without putting their butt in harm's way. Semper Fi
sorry Ladies
Hell yeah women should not be aloud in the military and also we had a girl like that in my JROTC unit she didnt come back the next year I think the Colonel had some thing to do with that LOL.And sorry ladies but realy women shouldnt be in the military.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.