nsplayr

It's about equality of opportunity. If women can make the standards why would you not want them? That's the part I don't get. I get the argument that the standards shouldn't be lowered to let women in and I agree, where we apparently disagree is that if a woman can meet the standards (as unlikely as that may be for some elite units), why exclude them by policy when they can hack the entry requirements? WRT to the standards, see above. If you're in a position to influence ground combat assessions, don't lower the standards, period. That's getting the execution right. And yes, I may or may not have seen "some of the shit those dudes did in the mountains of Afghanistan" once or twice, my hat's off to anyone who can do that because I certainly couldn't. Differences exist (obviously), but the rest of this is your opinion and BS stereotypes and prejudices. It was once said there's no way women could handle the responsibilities of working outside the home, of doing high-powered job X, of serving in Congress, etc. etc. but guess what? Those opinions were OBE as some top-notch women excelled at all of the above. If this attitude is the root of your opposition then the only thing that will (maybe) convince you to change your mind is to see someone you know and respect succeed at something you think they can't possibly do with your own two eyes. I do and that's a tough one, no doubt. It's a fine line between not supporting things you don't believe in and not doing your job. I can see more easily saying you won't defend something in court (DOMA) more than not enforcing the law as it's written, whether via signing statements, EOs, etc. But this President and almost every other who has occupied that office have taken such measures because they believed them necessary to do what was right for the country. Haven't sat in that seat, where there are unlimited expectations and limited power, so it's hard to judge too harshly. And I know you don't believe this Administration or the Dem party has the monopoly in skirting the law in some cases or selectively enforcing things they don't agree with... I said it's not needed to make the force stronger, and that's not the primary reason it's being done. Do I personally believe in the long run it will make the force stronger? Yes, I actually do, once the initial problems are worked around. But it about having a policy that reflects what I think are the right values. I find those polls to be full of sh*t specifically because of what you said. If the country is so "on the wrong track" then why do people continue reelecting incumbents? And this is for both parties...Bush's right/wrong track numbers were underwater in 2004, Obama's have been for his whole Presidency basically, yet both reelected. I just don't think people are translating those feelings of "wrong track" into actually doing something different which makes me question if that pessimistic view is actually real or not. One of the pre-reqs for ground combat is/was having a penis, that's not performance-based IMHO. So you don't cheer when your views become enshrined in law or other "official policy" and grumble when things go the other way? I think when your policy choices are implemented in law and official policy it means you're winning the debate, so I'm very pleased that many of the policies I support have been enacted recently, there's no reason I or anyone else should feel any different when what they believe in gets put into place. It would be dumber to "toe the line" for something you don't believe in or somehow be disappointed when what you think is right gets enacted...that kind of behavior wouldn't make any sense to me. Are you not happy to "force your opinion onto others" via policies you support being signed into law?? If the best defense for your views is that "well, the other side is 100% full of shit," spare me if I'm not convinced to see it your way...

It's cyclical. Values drive political philosophy which in turn encourages you to examine issues and return to and reevaluate or reconfirm your values. New or strengthened values drive a renewed political philosophy, ad infinitum. The fact that my values align well with one political party over the others is not a sign that they do not exist independent of the party. I was raised by my parents with a particular set of values from birth, I only started paying attention to politics in high school, by which time those values were, for the most part, firmly established. I'd say most informed people are well served with the two major parties when it comes to reflecting their values despite your claims of blind party loyalty. If that wasn't true there would be a bigger push for more competitive parties and the big two wouldn't have such a strangle-hold on elected office. I personally would welcome more political parties so every thoughtful voter could cast his ballot with real intellectual honesty. For the most part I'm well served by the values of the Democratic Party; maybe our political system isn't serving your values as well? If in the future the values of that party change and become not so well-aligned with my own, I would have no problem voting for other parties or candidates. The Dem party has never done a damn thing for me other than represent my beliefs, so the day that stops I will stop supporting them.

I said I wasn't a libertarian, seems like it's an appealing philosophy around here though so FWIW scaredfuzz's sentiments weren't really in keeping with a liberty-first point of view. And all my political views are driven by my values, just like everyone else.

I'm guessing F-15 driver based on the extreme number of eagles visible in that pic? I'm counting at least 10...

Haven't read it yet but it's on my list, liked his articles. Yea, 100% agree, have seen some dumb people in the military but it usually pales in comparison to what you see in the general public or the civilian workplace. "The problem is that lots of people clearly don't want liberty for all. They want liberty for themselves and conformity for others." HOSS, as quoted in Vertigo's sig line. Not that I'm a libertarian, but really man, "Why don't they just join a different service?" Real generous of you to offer a separate but equal military branch they can join while you're free to pursue whatever career you think you can qualify for! FIFY

Overall his thesis just doesn't make sense...basically that we let women in and the whole U.S. military went to shit. I'd argue we're stronger today compared to our enemies than at anytime previously in our nation's history. And to say service in today's U.S. military is "so unattractive" that we have to let in illiterate immigrants...not sure what retention and education numbers he's looking at.

The 8th amendment can and has been "tweaked" by legal cases over the years. Just like every single amendment in the Bill of Rights. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote in 1958, of the Eighth Amendment specifically, "The Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." Not that I support a "tweaking" that leads to dudes' "tweakers" getting chopped off, but it's not 100% out of the question given the generally accepted legal standard WRT the 8th Amendment. Most cases brought on the grounds of cruel and unusual punishment are usually trying to decrease the threshold i.e. make more things (like the death penalty in general or life w/o parole) deemed cruel and unusual, but if you wanna bring suit and try to go the opposite way go for it!

That's a shame man...we got them issued but agreed that they were POS. Can't say I wear mine much since it's so damn uncomfortable; been considering getting a Pop's alternate. Pretty sure that falls under cruel and unusual punishment, yikes.

Well capital punishment goes a little far IMHO but yea, if you're convicted of a sexual assault after a trial (innocent until proven guilty after due process has occurred), then you should serve whatever sentence that court assigns. I'm not a lawyer/judge and honestly sentencing depends on the circumstances of the case unless there is some kind of mandatory minimum. I would imagine an article 15 and/or a dishonorable dischange could be common sentences but then again I don't really know what the baseline sentence for sexual assault is.

Leather jackets, aviator sunglasses, big-ass watches, & cocky swagger? I very much don't support most of the actions associated with The Great Witch Hunt of 2012, but, you have to admit the current situation is not good from a leadership perspective. Lawsuits alleging widespread sexual assault and acceptance of the degradation of women are not something you want when you need to be focusing on a combat mission and rehabbing a worn-out force and fleet of airplanes. Hard to disagree that "the goal is zero sexual assaults," can anyone say that is not what the goal is? I mean, I support zero tolerance for something that's illegal and f*cking horrible on top of just being illegal, don't you? The actions you decided to take in reaching that goal, that's a whole different story. Banning traditions that, without a doubt, are part of the AF heritage, I'm not sure that moves the ball closer to the goal line. I highly doubt anyone looked at WWII nose art and decided, "Ya know what, it's OK to rape someone."

Yes. And that will not change, Panetta specifically addresses this in his comment. The standards are what they are and if there if no woman can meet real, necessary standards then so be it. BUT, one standard that exists right now for ground combat units is "must have penis" and that standard should and is going away. Those standards may change over time and that's a continual process that's up to whoever is in command of those units and that training and as I'm sure you know, a big part of deciding what is and is not acceptable performance on a given task is the professional judgement of the instructor overseeing that person. Instructors and evaluators teach and safeguard the minimum standards, so that's where the execution portion of a policy change like this comes in to play. You seem extremely cynical, can't say I share your level of pessimism on why humans act the way they do but whatever. I am quite happy with my position on this issue, thanks for hoping for the best in that case at least. I guess that's possible, it certainly solves some of the logistical questions (i.e. mixing genders in sleeping quarters/latrines with limited resources). It happened in the civil war and WWII with black soldiers and guess what, they did just fine and now no one questions if people of different races can work together on the front lines. Maybe this policy needs to take the same route as your suggest, who knows. This is a great point that I think people are missing when they look at the PT test and see different standards for men and women. What's the purpose of the PT test? Public health management; it has nothing to do with combat fitness. I'm a huge fan of getting rid of the pushups/pullups/situps/run style of fitness tests for everyone of all genders in all branches in favor of more functional tests of fitness more applicable to one's job, but that's another battle. The Marines have a separate combat fitness test, with the components meant to simulate actual battlefield-necessary tasks. Let the standards for ground combat units be linked to that, as well as passing the accessions course, marksmanship, etc. etc. Not sure why they have different standards for men and women on that test (I would think it should be the same), but I'm not a Marine so I don't really know what's required. Not sure I understand...everyone has values, everyone has things they find have value and things they don't. Even fascist or whatever group you think is totally worthless does have values, they're just values you don't agree with. Even a terrible, mentally deranged person may value control and order and suffering or whatever other sick sh*t they think is "good," those things become your values. Back in the world of normal people, almost every policy disagreement not born out of interpersonal conflict (i.e. I just hate that guy so f*ck his idea) can be traced back to a disagreement on values. To tie it back to national politics, do you value you liberty or security? Do you value justice or compassion? Do you value individualism or collective action? Do you value sticking to your guns (sts) or finding compromise? Obviously those are not either/or questions, but your answers to them, when applied to a specific issue, will determine what you support and what you don't support policy-wise. That's what I'm talking about when I say politics is all about values.

I was real close to buying a P99QA from a buddy in the squadron a while back but didn't pull the trigger so to speak. I liked that gun a lot, not sure why I hadn't thought of a Walther 9 again. Probably will add the PPQ to my list, thanks!

Full transcript of the interview.

What's wrong with that? If units want to exclude women after the new policy is in place, there should be a valid operational reason. I can think of some units that would likely have valid operational reasons. So long as the reason isn't "you have to have a dick to be here," and has everything to do with the unit's combat mission and those reasons exist in ways that could not be possibly overcome by a woman, I'm sure they'll have no problem briefing that to the Boss.

Politics is all about values (and power). Every policy choice a politician votes for is an expression of his values one way or the other. In this case there aren't exactly politicians involved (Panetta was previously but is not currently an elected official, Dempsey et al on the Joint Chiefs of Staff have never held elected office) but that's besides the point. This particular policy choices reflectes a particular set of values that I share. It's still missing the point...it's not being done because we really need women in these units or because there's somekind of manpower shortage so they figured they'd get a little womanpower or something like that. It's all about A) values -> equality of opportunity and the default should be that there is not discrimination unless there is a verifiable, operational need, and B) reality -> women are already on the front lines in many other positions, why not admit them to "ground combat units" as members of the unit instead of being "attached" like they can be now, assuming they meet the standards of that unit? Straight from the horse's mouths: Panetta on the values argument, And Dempsey on the reality argument, That story is from Dempsey occurred about a decade ago, just to emphasize that women have been serving in positions most reasonable people would consider combat for some time now, right here in our U.S. military.

This is an awesome image to imagine...well said! My bet is it's values driven and also making policy line up with reality. The values argument is the one I've been making, the reality argument is the one Dempsey in particular has been making...that he's seen way more women in positions he considered "on the front liens" in Iraq and Afghanistan than he thought was allowed and they've served admirably. With that in mind, why ban them from certain other positions out in front if he already sees them there in danger right along side the guys and performing well?

I've shot and carried a 228 before and liked it ok, better than the Beretta 92 at least. I just hear dudes raving over the XD or glocks or whatever (the M&P seems popular too) and I want to know what I'm missing out on. Can't afford nor would I need all three but in lieu of going out and shooting them (sometime soon hopefully...) figured dudes on here probably owned them and could speak to the differences and/or their preferences. Thanks for your take on getting a steel gun though.

Sounds good to me, although that's probably on Congress to change that in particular. I've never heard anyone around here that I fail to fully argue my points, I'll take that as constructive criticism. It's a harmless jab since he's a f*cking LT just like I'm a f*cking nav. Har har, never heard that one before. And here's Azimuth complaining I'm not bringing my all to the conversation! You guys should talk and decide if you want more or less debate. Or I can just deicide that's enough; like I said, the policy is done and if anyone wants to oppose it GL with that position, you will be OBE.

It is the United States Government all the same. I want my government representing my values, and I value equality of opportunity and don't support limitations based on gender or sexual orientation or race or whatever. That's the root of it and why I think it's the right thing to do. If someone can't make it, whatever "it" is, let it be because they can't meet the objective, necessary standards rather than because of what is between their legs or who they wanna shack up with in their free time or what color their skin is. Women have been fighting in "real wars" since "real wars" began. I have absolutely no problem imagining them in "real wars" since it's already happened. Is a "fake war" like the ones on movie sets? Am I talking to a lieutenant perhaps? They're a little slow on the uptake when it comes to everything. I don't know why I'm continuing to debate the merits of this policy, it's happening/happened. It's on the military to execute it well so GL if you're in a position to do that. For those opposed, enjoy standing athwart history yelling "stop!" Let me know how that works out for ya.

It was a comparison to demo that just because someone is willing to fight for something doesn't make them or their something honorable. Could have said "militants firing RPGs at U.S. troops."

That's pretty standard legislative strategy to CYA in case there are court cases potentally affecting the law in question. Wasn't everyone saying how dumb the authors of Obamacare were that they didn't include or couldn't convince members to pass a severability clause? Generally if you're the author of a bill you want to include severability so in case some (usually) small part of the bill gets invalidated by a court you don't lose the entire thrust of what the legislature was trying to accomplish by passing the bill. Severability is in many ways a check-and-balance used by the legislature against the power of the judiciary. p.s. - all this sh*t about Feinstein's bill and the 2nd Amendment discussion should be moved to the Constitution thread. Edit to add: M&P, Glock 17, or XDm for a full-sized pistol in 9mm? Or something else? CCW is not a factor, price is not a factor per se but maximum value for money is always valid. Other than "go out and shoot all three and see what you like," any first-hand experience or recommendations are appreciated.

Hell, suicide bombers have the gall to stand up for what they believe in...doesn't quite make them heroes in my book because their methods are unacceptable, let alone that in their case, I also think what they believe in is wrong.

How does this cost any money? For me at least, this isn't driven by an operational need, if it was we would have done it long ago. I mean, there was a female sniper in Stalingrad with 50+ kills if I remember my history correctly, so if we really needed more grunts, women would already be grunts. It's driven by values and putting value on both equality of opportunity as well as on the contributions women are already making in fairly "front-line" positions. Observations about how women were already on the battlefield were the very things cited by both Panetta and Dempsey when discussing why they supported the new policy. Dempsey talked about how in 2003 when he was a division commander he was riding around Iraq and his turet gunner was a woman and he was very surprised; that was 10 years ago. Which two wars are those? I'm counting OEF and a few odds and ends. Regardless, that's such a tired excuse. "We're so busy, we'll do the right thing later!" I get it if you don't think it's the right thing now or ever, but are you trying to argue that if we were not so operationally busy that it'd be ok, but since we are it's a no-go? That's a dumb argument IMHO, you either think it's a good policy or not and if it's a good policy waiting around to implement it until our open-ended war with al-Qaeda is "over" doesn't really make a lot of sense. I mean, if Afghanistan winds down by 2014 as planned should we suddenly go ahead and give this a try? Obviously they have their own opinions just like any person. And they were both nominated by the President so I'm sure they're not going to massively contradict him. However, I also believe people stand up for things they believe in and here they are, our top two leaders (DOD civ and mil) supporting this so I'm gonna take them for their word that they support it and have spent time thinking about why they're doing it and the implications.

I just done get their MO..."I disagree with your policy, so I'm going to engage in cyber crime to prove just how wrong you were!"