Jump to content
Fnfalman

First real female Green Beret

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Fnfalman said:

And Mattis; not a civilian, still KEPT the policy. 

why are you second guessing Mattis?  Do you claim to have better military prowess than the Warrior Monk Saint Mattis of Quantico?

 

2 minutes ago, 26isbest said:

Since you seem to be confused at the concept of civilian control of the US military here is an article that was published by the DOD*. Hopefully after you read it you might understand the concept of civilian control of the military. Or you can show it to someone else so they can read it and explain the concept to you.

http://archive.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=45870

*DOD is an acronym for Department Of Defense, it is an agency led by a civilian whose title is Secretary Of Defense. 

That is flat out amazing that you apparently made it through an enlistment without understanding that the very top of your chain of command was comprised of civilians. :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Barack ‘corpseman’ Obama started the policy. Not surprising that the guy who wanted to ‘lead from behind’ thought this up (I use the term thought in the loosest possible sense).

The naïveté is astounding. How can someone live to reach adulthood and still think the military is some kind of pristine institution completely removed from political considerations?

Next up Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy will be enlisting in SF.

Years ago I was born in a military hospital in Germany. My mother became septic and went into a coma. My dad, with an infant only a few days old, was told he was out of leave and would have to report for duty. Taking care of me, he was told, was a personal problem the command didn’t care about.

He called my grandmother, who called her uncle (former Lt. Governor of Mississippi) who called Senator Stennis, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. 
 

About 3 am German time the commanding general of the European theatre got a phone call from a very irate Senator.  When my dad reported for duty the next day he was greeted by the CO, a colonel, who told him he could take as much time off as he needed and oh by the way was there anything at all the colonel could do to help the corporal?

That’s how the military works.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, 26isbest said:

 

That is flat out amazing that you apparently made it through an enlistment without understanding that the very top of your chain of command was comprised of civilians. :dunno:

And your point is?  Mattis may not have been an active duty personnel when he was SecDef but he was still a RETIRED commissioned officer. If he was good with women in combat, then who are you to second guess him?  Do you claim to have superior knowledge of all things military than General Mattis?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Wyzz Kydd said:

So Barack ‘corpseman’ Obama started the policy. Not surprising that the guy who wanted to ‘lead from behind’ thought this up (I use the term thought in the loosest possible sense).

The naïveté is astounding. How can someone live to reach adulthood and still think the military is some kind of pristine institution completely removed from political considerations?

Next up Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy will be enlisting in SF.

Years ago I was born in a military hospital in Germany. My mother became septic and went into a coma. My dad, with an infant only a few days old, was told he was out of leave and would have to report for duty. Taking care of me, he was told, was a personal problem the command didn’t care about.

He called my grandmother, who called her uncle (former Lt. Governor of Mississippi) who called Senator Stennis, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. 
 

About 3 am German time the commanding general of the European theatre got a phone call from a very irate Senator.  When my dad reported for duty the next day he was greeted by the CO, a colonel, who told him he could take as much time off as he needed and oh by the way was there anything at all the colonel could do to help the corporal?

That’s how the military works.

And Bone Spur Trump is keeping Obama’s policy of Women in Combat.  
 

hey, I have an idea, since that you know so much about Making Armed Forces Great Again, why don’t you run for offices?  Congress governs the military, so at least run for the Senate or House. Or go full bore and run for POTUS so that you can be CINC. 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Fnfalman said:

And your point is?  Mattis may not have been an active duty personnel when he was SecDef but he was still a RETIRED commissioned officer. If he was good with women in combat, then who are you to second guess him?  Do you claim to have superior knowledge of all things military than General Mattis?

Your question is noted and dismissed as BS. First off that argument from authority is just a cheap way for you suggest that being a Commisioned Officer automatically puts a person above reproach and incapable of acting from self interest. See Phillipe Petain, Duke Cunningham and John McCain if you still don't get it.

Secondly it was Obama's policy as implemented by Panetta in 2013 that pertains to how this woman was brought into SF training so it is, in fact, Obama's policy that you are defending. The fact that the policy was not overturned by the Trump administration does not change the fact that it was and is Obama's policy. And yes, Trump is a bad man. Whatever justifies voting for Bidet err Biden is fine.

As for Mattis, who BTW was not SecDef when the policy was put in place and does not now hold that position, your assertion that the Warrior Monk not to be second guessed is BS just based on the notion that here in America ANY and ALL elected and appointed officials can be subjected to scrutiny. If you would like to promulgate a revised policy of making some people immune to scrutiny please explain why that is a good idea.

If, in Mattis specific case, you are suggesting that he would never do anything inimical to the interests of the US military for his own self interest than explain why he accepted a position on the board of Theranos* (from 2013 to 2017) from Elizabeth Holmes after she asked him to intercede on her behalf after military reviewers of Theranos technology asked the FDA to step in? But, of course, it is only blood testing. How could faulty blood testing hurt a service member? 

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/02/internal-emails-reveal-concerns-about-theranoss-fda-compliance-date-back-years/ 

*Military issues aside, Theranos was one of the largest scams ever perpetrated and lots of investors lost money. But Mattis and others hired by Holmes to give an air of legitimacy to Theranos made out very well. All while failing in their duty to provide the fiduciary oversight inherent in their positions.

But don't dare question the Warrior Monk. He is, and always was, above reproach. Right?

Edited by 26isbest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, 26isbest said:

Your question is noted and dismissed as BS. First off that argument from authority is just a cheap way for you suggest that being a Commisioned Officer automatically puts a person above reproach and incapable of acting from self interest. See Phillipe Petain, Duke Cunningham and John McCain if you still don't get it.

Secondly it was Obama's policy as implemented by Panetta in 2013 that pertains to how this woman was brought into SF training so it is, in fact, Obama's policy that you are defending. The fact that the policy was not overturned by the Trump administration does not change the fact that it was and is Obama's policy. And yes, Trump is a bad man. Whatever justifies voting for Bidet err Biden is fine.

As for Mattis, who BTW was not SecDef when the policy was put in place and does not now hold that position, your assertion that the Warrior Monk not to be second guessed is BS just based on the notion that here in America ANY and ALL elected and appointed officials can be subjected to scrutiny. If you would like to promulgate a revised policy of making some people immune to scrutiny please explain why that is a good idea.

If, in Mattis specific case, you are suggesting that he would never do anything inimical to the interests of the US military for his own self interest than explain why he accepted a position on the board of Theranos* (from 2013 to 2017) from Elizabeth Holmes after she asked him to intercede on her behalf after military reviewers of Theranos technology asked the FDA to step in? But, of course, it is only blood testing. How could faulty blood testing hurt a service member? 

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/02/internal-emails-reveal-concerns-about-theranoss-fda-compliance-date-back-years/ 

*Military issues aside, Theranos was one of the largest scams ever perpetrated and lots of investors lost money. But Mattis and others hired by Holmes to give an air of legitimacy to Theranos made out very well. All while failing in their duty to provide the fiduciary oversight inherent in their positions.

But don't dare question the Warrior Monk. He is, and always was, above reproach. Right?

So what if it's Obama's policy I'm defending?  I happen to agree with this particular policy.  Women should be able to serve in combat MOSes and in direct combat (they already exposed to direct combat well before this policy went into effect).  51% of the population is women, it's foolish to think that not all of them can contribute to the combat MOSes - especially nowadays with the male youths being a bunch of nancy boys.  

If you don't like it, you can always become POTUS or a congress critter and change the policy.  Talk is cheap.  Do something about it instead of whining on the intrawebz.

Unlike you and your ilk claims, American military is fighting just fine with women serving in combat and now combat MOSES, Spec Ops, etc.  They're counting coupes just fine while you and me sitting on our fat asses pretending that we actually know something about how the modern military works and the modern Army fights.

Our days in the sun are long gone.  Let it go.  Support the current GI Joes and GI Janes.  America is fine.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fnfalman said:

So what if it's Obama's policy I'm defending?  I happen to agree with this particular policy.  Women should be able to serve in combat MOSes and in direct combat (they already exposed to direct combat well before this policy went into effect).  51% of the population is women, it's foolish to think that not all of them can contribute to the combat MOSes - especially nowadays with the male youths being a bunch of nancy boys.  

If you don't like it, you can always become POTUS or a congress critter and change the policy.  Talk is cheap.  Do something about it instead of whining on the intrawebz.

Unlike you and your ilk claims, American military is fighting just fine with women serving in combat and now combat MOSES, Spec Ops, etc.  They're counting coupes just fine while you and me sitting on our fat asses pretending that we actually know something about how the modern military works and the modern Army fights.

Our days in the sun are long gone.  Let it go.  Support the current GI Joes and GI Janes.  America is fine.  

Your Warrior Monk has feet of clay and your attempt at misdirection is noted. How could anyone dare question Mattis indeed. 

It's pretty hard to defend the Warrior Monk's conduct in the Theranos case. Using his General stars while in uniform to lean on another professional tasked with evaluating the alleged blood testing equipment so he (Mattis) could be rewarded with a do nothing job on Theranos Board in retirement a year later is pretty low self serving behavior. Fortunately his advocacy of the Theranos scam didn't result in widespread adoption by the military, as Mattis wanted, because there were people hurt as a result of using it. 

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2018/06/07/theranos-elizabeth-holmes-experimented-arizonans-bad-blood-book/675541002/

Greta.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, 26isbest said:

Your Warrior Monk has feet of clay and your attempt at misdirection is noted. How could anyone dare question Mattis indeed. 

It's pretty hard to defend the Warrior Monk's conduct in the Theranos case. Using his General stars while in uniform to lean on another professional tasked with evaluating the alleged blood testing equipment so he (Mattis) could be rewarded with a do nothing job on Theranos Board in retirement a year later is pretty low self serving behavior. Fortunately his advocacy of the Theranos scam didn't result in widespread adoption by the military, as Mattis wanted, because there were people hurt as a result of using it. 

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2018/06/07/theranos-elizabeth-holmes-experimented-arizonans-bad-blood-book/675541002/

Greta.jpg

Man, I feel so sad for you. All of that military prowess you possessed yet no one in the American military recognized it and putting it to good use. 
 

Mattis may have feet of clay but he’s five hundred times the military man that you ever were. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/18/2020 at 11:45 PM, Fnfalman said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/taskandpurpose.com/.amp/news/army-special-forces-female-soldier
 

She hasn’t officially graduated yet but unless things went drastically wrong, it’s all over except for the butthurt by certain group of men. 

Big whoop. She isn't doing any thing ten thousand men haven't already been doing for 50 or 60 years now. Whoooopie doopie do dah.  How many men in her class all just did exactly the same thing or more than she did?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/10/2020 at 11:06 AM, Jack Ryan said:

Big whoop. She isn't doing any thing ten thousand men haven't already been doing for 50 or 60 years now. Whoooopie doopie do dah.  How many men in her class all just did exactly the same thing or more than she did?

How many men in her class are real women with supposed inferior physical prowess?

and maybe you’re some sort of Superbad commando, it’s usually a pretty big whoop to pass SFAS and Q Course....even for the tens of thousands of men who had been doing it for the past 60-years.  Or are you insinuating that Special Forces selection and qualification are cake walks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congrats to her. And wishing her best of luck when she gets to her A Team.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...