USNA vs USCGA

Colleges and Universities A-Z Naval Academy - Annapolis
81

<p>Seal,
After thinking about today's discussions I figured I'd cut you some slack and just assume you are just "gung ho". Then I took the opportunity to see some of your other posts on some other college conf. discussion groups (Duke University comes to mind).</p>

<p>"Seriously, Duke isn't hard to get into, the people there suck, and your mascot is based off a French infantry unit. Who wants to be represented by the French, even worse, their armed forces."</p>

<p>"First of all, I have nothing but contempt for people who say LOL, I mean, seriously. Laugh out Loud? Secondly, I spent about an hour on my Duke app, and I had no problems with getting in. So everyone who is bragging about getting in, big frigging deal. Duke sucks."</p>

<p>then you write on this board:</p>

<p>"I put more effort and time into my Coast Guard application then I did with my 3 nomination applications and my other service academy applications COMBINED. The other service academies required the applicant to fill in some bubbles and write a poorly prompted essay."</p>

<p>see any similarities?</p>

<p>You have a habit of spending a lot of time and posts just putting down other schools and the people who apply to them. The common thread in your posts is that the application process for the schools you don't like is "they are easy" and anyone who goes to those schools must be "inferior" to you. Not just put downs, but down right immature and insulting posts. I think you would do well to reconsider your applications to the service academies. I dare say they are looking for a bit more maturity and character than you have displayed on college confidential thus far. You mention that your parents took no part in your college application efforts---perhaps this is why they should have. I hope I am wrong. Good Luck</p>

82

<p>SEAL6,
You're a foul-mouthed punk, and you owe Ms. Lewis an apology. Make your family proud and clean up your act.</p>

83

<p>DeepThroat-
I agree</p>

<p>Shogun-</p>

<p>have you ever served in the armed forces?</p>

84

<p>" I am too feeble to carry a rifle."
SEAL6</p>

85

<p>"Women aren't just concerned with "equality". Just an equal opportunity to defend a nation that is just as much theirs as the boy next door's." </p>

<p>-They already have that opportunity. Do we need to open every career path to every person? What about the guy with 20/40 vision, or better yet, a touch of color-blindness, who wants defend his nation from a fighter plane? Does the military get to keep him out of the field because of his physical limitations? Surely there is some color blind guy somewhere who would make a better pilot than the worst pilot in the Navy, so why not give him a chance . . . ?</p>

<p>"Things are just fine they way they are now"</p>

<p>"That might be true of a Navy and Air Force that hasn't seen recruitment go down in an all volunteer force vs the Army and Marines that have seen it fall---and this at a time when the Army and Marines are at the for-front of the war on terror."</p>

<p>-Perhaps these shortfalls reflect an attitude that the Iraq war is immoral, arguably illegal, and founded on deception by our government, not any fear or unwillingness to fight among the country's men. </p>

<p>"It seems that our ground forces are grossly understaffed for the mission today, our leaders will not reinstitute the draft, and we are ignoring an entire part of our citizenry who might be willing to volunteer because we're afraid of sex in a fox hole."</p>

<p>Are you advocating a return to the draft? If so, we can discuss that in another thread! There are solutions to our manpower shortages that are currently being worked out within DOD. None of them involve staffing infantry units with women. Instead, they involve moving men who are in combat support roles into combat roles, and moving civilians (or women) into the support roles. </p>

<p>I find this whole thread kind of strange, because I have not heard much saber rattling in the media about pushing for full integration of women into combat roles. </p>

<p>"Things are just fine the way they are now"---where have we ever heard that before???---famous last words. If you don't forsee a change, better look up because like in every democracy that isn't afraid to correct it's mistakes, it's coming.</p>

<p>-The reason this characteristic appears inherent in every democracy is because every generation thinks it knows more than the one that came before it! Guess what--in this case, like many others, our democracy has already correctly worked out this situation.</p>

<p>"I bear you no ill will. Your attitudes are representative of that last bastion of manhood-our military." </p>

<p>-Actually, these attitudes are representative of the views held in Congress, and by "democractic" extension, the views of the citizens of the country. </p>

<p>"It may not happen until the threat is so serious as to endanger our very survival as a nation, but then, isn't that the only justifiable reason to make war on one another anyway?"</p>

<p>-Only if there hasn't been a justifiable war since WWII. </p>

<p>DeepThroat</p>

86

<p>As a parent, like many on this MB, I read these posts with a different eye than the young men and women in high school or college. What I find disturbing is that the attitudes still prevail about women in the military and their ability to serve. I would expect it from people in older generations as change can be threatening. But, to see it from youngsters is disturbing to say the least. I think basic pat answers and general rules keeping any group "out" is not in the best interest of our nation. Each individual should be judged as such and put in the best position that they are capable of. There are some very very strong women in our military completely capable of combat, just as there are some men who would be better suited to other types of work. The "why fix it" question closes the door to progress in our society. Why set limitations? Let's have the best force out there to protect us.</p>

87

<p>It appears that those on this forum (thread) advocating women in combat roles are parents of young women attending or looking forward to attending a service academy. I have not read a post stating that women should not serve in the military; questioning their ability or motivation. The issue at hand is women in front line combat. Should women be placed in front line combat-absolutely not, combat support roles-most definitely. I don't have time at the moment to respond to support my position. I will say though that unless one is affiliated with the military, has served or is currently serving, it would be hard to make a fair assessment. It's easy to rattle off quotes from various people to try and make a case for oneself, but for every quote mentioned in support of women in combat roles I can state one against.</p>

88

<p>Semper:
Yes, I am a mother of a very strong daughter and 3 younger boys. Of my 4, I think the level-headedness, strength (both physically and mentally) and composure under pressure has been most demonstrated by my daughter. Do I want her in combat? Of course not. However, I also wouldn't want my sons in combat either. I don't know why people seem so adament or threatened about women doing jobs that they are qualified to do. As I stated earlier, why not just set job requirements and then pick the best qualified: men or women, white or black etc. Some jobs would be majority or maybe even entirely men while others might see similar skewing based on strengths. But to have boundaries for either sex is just plain wrong. Because it hasn't been done before isn't argument enough for me. I want all of my children to have every opportunity available to them that they are qualified to do. Period.</p>

89

<p>"They already have that opportunity. Do we need to open every career path to every person?"</p>

<p>EVERY path to EVERY person? NO, but if A person is qualified and able to perform THE mission they should be allowed to. Special Forces isn't open to EVERY man, only men that are qualified and can perform the mission. Men aren't allowed to be pilots unless they are qualified. Iam sure the captain of that Norweigan sub wan't given her command till she was qualified. Ground combat assignments should be open to any woman that is qualified as well. No one should be discounted merely because they are a woman, a man, gay, red, purple, black or white.</p>

<p>Have I ever served in the US military? No. But then most of the posters here haven't either. Those that have I have respect for because they have served, but it certainly doesn't automatically make them correct on policy. The average soldier or sailer in WW2 saw nothing wrong with segregation in the military in WW2--it certainly didn't make them right.</p>

<p>Do I expect this issue to be resolved on this thread? No. But it is appropriate to discuss considering women are risking death in the same manner as men, in combat or on the roads of Iraq, serving their country in it's defense. They should at least be given the opportunity to do so with the same recognition, status, and yes-career path advancement as the brave men who are serving and dying as well.</p>

<p>The argument against women serving in "front line combat" is mute. Women are already serving in front line combat because in today's war in Iraq there is NO front line. Our military is the police there right now. Not because it was the plan, but because that's how it turned out. If we don't learn to adapt and change our strategies based on current conditions we won't be successfull. Thats the way it's always been.</p>

90

<p>Naps05mom--First of all I agree with you that hopefully none of us will have to serve in combat.However,if it does take place and we are in the battlefield,don't you want your son or daughter to be with a group of people who are the most physically fit and mentally competent they can be with?The fastest,strongest and brightest? I don't want the physically inferior,either the male who can't complete the PRT or the female who never made it through the obstacle course next to me in combat.When the physical standards are not the same (nor should they be),for entrance or graduating between males and females,if you had the same requirments ,you would have a military of 99% male and that will never happen either.Just a thought!</p>

91

<p>Some good points bkozy. I think any of us would want the best qualified person with our son or daughter. Especially if it's the leader we're talking abut. What that qualification should be depends on the mission and the situation. If the need at the moment is to have a quick thinker and someone cool under pressure that can make a critical decision in a timely manner and lead the troops out of harms way while still accomplishing the mission it might take one kind of person. If the need is someone who can do an 8 foot standing broad jump it might take another. Not every person is cut out to do every mission---but that qualification has more to do with training, endurance, intelligence, and skills, than it does with gender. The answer isn't simple, but that doesn't mean the question shouldn't be asked and change shouldn't be sought after.</p>

<p>It's been a great discussion that has probably run it's course. Good luck to all.</p>

92

<p>Good God Almighty this thread went far!</p>

<p>I have said it before, and I'll say it again. The military is here to defend our country. Not garentee everyone a job. I respect and acknowledge the contributions women have made to our country and military. My Grandmother was a Navy WAVE. She was among the first to go to sea.</p>

<p>But come now. There is no gray area here. Women are not as qualified as men to be in direct combat. If there are different physical standards, they are no as qualified. And I don't care if a women IS physically qualified. The truth of the matter is, sex in a foxhole is a big deal. Just ask the Navy. Our military is a well-oiled machine. women play their role. But you can't change that they are weaker, have more body fat and are more susceptible to heat, have less endurance, and have quite a few "limiting" biological functions.</p>

<p>"If the need at the moment is to have a quick thinker and someone cool under pressure that can make a critical decision in a timely manner and lead the troops out of harms way while still accomplishing the mission it might take one kind of person. If the need is someone who can do an 8 foot standing broad jump it might take another." </p>

<p>Why not take the man who can do both? I simply do not need to prove myself. A women in combat would be damaging to the traditional military lifestyle, and in a leadership role, could destroy the whole team.</p>

<p>Shogun, I wish your daughter good luck. If she got into West Point, than she is a leader, and here leadership will be an asset to the army. But she doesn't need to be a leader in combat, and thank god, the government agrees.</p>

93

<p>I am hopeful that my daughter will be able to meet the challenge of combat with the same competence with which women West Pointers are facing it today in Iraq, (without the recognition). I do know for certain that when the time comes for the nation to recognize the ability of some of it's women (like some of it's men) by assigning them to combat units in name (not just in practice), that she and other young women will be ready. The same arguments against women going to West Point were argued vehemently in the 1970's, "women are damaging to the military lifestyle, they can't lead, they will destroy the whole team, etc etc etc". It's 30 years later and none of that has happened. Women have proved that they CAN be successful cadets and midshipmen and then later successful leaders in our military. It is sad that you at such a young age can decide on your own that no woman can be a military leader, fighter, or part of a team dedicated to the defense of this nation, in ALL of it's forms. Reread my post above about the woman captain in Iraq, leading men and women in combat situations and dangers--- she is proving you wrong every day she is there. Good luck in your quest for an appointment.</p>

94

<p>BKozy:
To answer your question about whom I would want next to my daughter or sons in combat, while I totally agree that I would want the most physically fit, fastest etc. I would also want the mentally sharpest, locked on soldier or sailor next to me as well. My point is that each job should take the best of the best for that particular job. If it ends up being 99% male, then so be it. But, if another section ends up being 99% female, that is fine too. Diversity among the workforce is a good thing and has been proven over and over again. Combat involves so much more than digging through the trenches fighting hand to hand. In an enemy ambush, I want the smartest first, then the fastest etc. I will take a sharp mind any day. But, I digress.... I think many of us actually agree more than we disagree. The only issues I have are from those who think that just because something was done a certain way, it should never change. Change is constant and if you don't roll with it, it rolls over you. The wars of today and tomorrow are getting less and less hand to hand and more technical. This changes everything. I , for one am glad that we are training officers from all backgrounds, races and sex.</p>

95

<p>Shogun,</p>

<p>I think you have me wrong. I acknowledge the contributions and leadership women provide in our military. I have nothing but the highest respect for these women. They have proven they can not only lead, but lead under fire and do it well. Hell it's possible they could lead on combat. That is not the question. It is SHOULD they. I believe in more women being the military and their growing role within it, both officers and enlisted.</p>

<p>But it doesn't answer the question as to why women should lead or serve at all in DIRECT combat. As you have pointed out women are serving in what are in many ways, combat zones. Military Police in Iraq face constant danger every day, sometimes more so than those whol rolled into baghdad or fought in Fallujah to break the insurgency to begin with. It's not a matter of whether they serve in that capacity, it's whether they should. Should women and men be integrated in that close quarters, zero privacy, "all-guy comraderie" environment? The simple answer is no. </p>

<p>It all comes down to my original sentiment. Women's work in the army and other branches of the armed forces are invalueable. Without them, our military would be MUCH less affective. However, there is such thing as the right people for the right job. Just because women CAN do something, if someone else can do it more affectively, they should be doing it. You don't eat soup with a fork. While you can get most of the substance and can still have a filling meal, it's just not quite right and you know it while you are eating.</p>

<p>Shogun, I can't predict if women will eventually serve in combat. However, I think you will agree that the time to experiment with this is NOT in the middle of a war where thousands have died and tens of thousands have been maimed or injured.</p>

<p>Once this conflict is more resolved, and the military is less strapped for cash, equipment, and people, then we can experiment with women in direct combat roles. However, in the possibilty it DOESN'T work out, and things ARE worse off, we won't have to think that the women in combat were partially responsible for part of the failures caused by it.</p>

96

<p>"I have nothing but the highest respect for these women. They have proven they can not only lead, but lead under fire and do it well. Hell it's possible they could lead on combat. That is not the question. It is SHOULD they."</p>

<p>I thank you for that honest answer. I always believed it was a matter of what is socially acceptable vs whether women could actually do the job. Convincing people one way or another on a social issue is a daunting task. In the end those issues are usually determined when that which is resisted is eventually proven to be viable in practice to the point where it is no longer logical to oppose the change. The fact that women can't avoid the combat environment in Iraq naturally leads to situations of women inadvertantly proving their ability, despite the best efforts of the government to deny that action by policy!. Once that proof becomes so obvious (or not) the change will occur (or not). I suspect the "Book of War" is being re-written page by page each day in Iraq by our military as tactics, methods, and missions are refined. </p>

<p>If we do not prepare these women TODAY for combat and some of them to LEAD in combat we are doing all of our soldiers a great dis-service because some of them are going to BE in combat, despite policy and "assignments".</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

97

<p>I think the women in the military is a great thing, like it has been said,"They're the neighbors of the boy next door."</p>

<p>BUT</p>

<p>I think the biggest factor here is not ONLY the belief of the old to resist this change, but rather the physical factor of women in combat.</p>

<p>I am in NO WAY putting down women here, but men are MOST of the time larger and stronger. Look at the high schools today where the 18 year old enlistees come from, they are usually not some girls who are "jacked."</p>

<p>What about men being led by a female in combat. That has never really happened, except I am assuming, in some extreme and unique circumstances. Would they listen? Would they take her seriously after being lead by males previously? Sure a soldier is supposed to follow their superiors orders, but with a drastic change like this would they?</p>

<p>You can also argue it is "not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog." I am no biologist, but won't testosterone and all those other things that make guys go crazy sometimes, I mean do girls have those chemicals? I don't know...</p>

<p>I may sound like an old conservative, but from a pure physical and I think....biological standpoint guys are better suited for the extreme position of being in combat.</p>

<p>I don't mean to tick anyone off, it's just my opinion, that's all.</p>

98

<p>"What about men being led by a female in combat. That has never really happened"</p>

<p>Turn on the evening news---it's happening in Iraq.</p>

99

<p>nobody is doubting the effort and tenacity of women. most people can agree that women work just as hard as men do at the academies. the fact is woman don't produce the same results physically. there are many positions for level headed females to use their poise and leadership skills, but not in a combat MOS. these areas rely on physical abilities that woman just dont have. the majority of men do higher on pat's than do women, that is why there are separate standards. even disregarding the social aspect of woman on the front lines and looking at it from a pure physical standpoint, the military would be hard pressed to find enough women able to meet the same physical standards as men in order to make it worthwhile to change the logistics of the front lines.</p>

100

<p>Women in Iraq</p>

<p><a href="http://www.cleveland.com/iraq/index.ssf"&gt;http://www.cleveland.com/iraq/index.ssf&lt;/a>?
/iraq/more/1078145715173800.html</p>

<p>sounds like at least some men have no issue serving under or with them.</p>

<p>By the way, could someone point out the front lines in Iraq so we can make sure the women and children are behind them?</p>