Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Morrigi]

Found this: http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/06/18/women-in-special-ops-raises-genuine-concerns.html?comp=7000023435630&rank=5

Looks like the military is finally developing gender-neutral training standards - The Marines first, of course.

[Loud Whispers]

Found this: http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/06/18/women-in-special-ops-raises-genuine-concerns.html?comp=7000023435630&rank=5

Looks like the military is finally developing gender-neutral training standards - The Marines first, of course.

Ah, the death of a meritocracy.

In stating that the "Days of Rambo are over," Sacolick said he meant that special operators in modern warfare are more valued for their language skills and intelligence than their physical prowess.

Oh, this sounds like a restructuring of the US military. Now this IS interesting.

On a more brighter note, the Privately owned Federal reserve misplaced 9 trillion dollars. Probably underneath the couch or something.

[Descan]

How is that restructuring?

And how is "allow women into the military, measure men and women on the same field" equal to "death of meritocracy"?

[Loud Whispers]

How is that restructuring?

Language skills & Intelligence > Physical prowess
Special operations become less about operations and more about being a diplomat. Would make a more decentralized ranks and rates system probable.

And how is "allow women into the military, measure men and women on the same field" equal to "death of meritocracy"?

• Specializations in specific branches do not cover the entire military. Equal opportunity means you have the same opportunities as others. When you enter a specialized branch passing with less qualifications simply for your gender, yes that is not a meritocracy. You are not being rewarded for being the best, you are being rewarded for being a woman. And by lowering the standards, the end result is what you end up joining is not what it started to be. This isn't honestly an issue if the Spec. Ops. people don't care for physical prowess in operations anymore, otherwise - it really is.
  I take specific mention of the military being a meritocracy, because the military has always been universally across the world the truest meritocracy through war.
  Where you could find a specialization that could suit you - one that is not so physically demanding and instead draws on your talents would be what I recommend, instead of simply degrading what that specialization means.
  Should we then also demand that sniper schools train appallingly short-sighted students, instead of advising them to seek other branches of military?
  
  Because they aren't being measured on the same field when one has it easier than another.
  
  Spoiler (click to show/hide)

  
  ^^^
  Sarah West, first warship commander in the Royal Navy who's a wren. She got there mainly by the merit of her talents and achievements. Hence, meritocracy. That is what equality is - equal opportunity, not equal saturation. If you don't fit the job requirements, the job is not for you. Find a job that does.

[Descan]

... But he never said "special qualifications for women"?

He said gender-neutral qualifications. As in, test the women the same as the men? As in, don't let a woman in who couldn't pass if they were a man and got the same score. You're barking at nothing, man.

[Loud Whispers]

... But he never said "special qualifications for women"?

He said gender-neutral qualifications. As in, test the women the same as the men? As in, don't let a woman in who couldn't pass if they were a man and got the same score. You're barking at nothing, man.

Critics warned that opening up ground combat positions to women would result in lower physical standards and possibly cost lives.

And the whole 'forget physical prowess' part coupled with the long precedent of lowering standards.

Oh wait, I'm surprised. Clear evidence supporting what you just said.
Just erase the specifics in my barking and save it for tea then.

[Descan]

Yeah, what critics say really has nothing to do with what the military is actually going to do.

[DWC]

Well, the generals have figured that men and women are too different to do the exact same kind of mission, so they moved the goal posts and changed the mission.

Special Forces has always been more 'diplomat and advisory' then 'march uphill 20 miles and brain the enemy with a shovel' type mission anyways. Direct action missions for SF has been lessened by the kind of conflict where SF works close with conventional forces, people who's sole purpose is this kind of fighting. SF is special because it does what conventional units can't do effectively and this is getting into the local populace and foreign government officials.

I don't see this as a bad thing. The wars are basically over anyways, there isn't much to lose if this all turns out bad. If it does go terribly bad, then the old-guard will be vindicated. If it goes well, then the US is more capable. If it goes mediocre, will, they'll muddle along forever, like the US military has been doing anyways. The US military is good, but it's not great. It's full of very average people doing their duties with a sensible amount of effort with a restrained amount of talent and intelligence. Despite the media and hollywood, the military isn't all flawlessly pure heroes or disgusting murdering criminals or naive victims of 'the man', it's a really accurate cross section of America as a diverse society and as an organization, it's open to experimentation, it's record is certainly not flawless, there is room for improvement.

So screw it, let's experiment and see what happens. I'm interested in seeing the results. All wars conducted by the USA are wars of choice anyways.

[Scoops Novel]

Generic laws... where at? A cursory googling doesn't seem to be showing universal ones in the states, barring perhaps anti-voyeurism stuff, but there are specific ones that vary from state to state. State of things in the european countries seem to vary from place to place, too.

As with a lot of things of that nature, you're going to want to check the specific laws of the area you're intending to operate in, especially in regards to what you're intending to do. This is as true for recording people (especially without consent) as it is for concealed weapons carrying.

Definitely not. There is simply too much space in between the various laws to have something "universal". I mean it pretty much seems to run the gamut.


Also, a bill supporting making Washington D.C. a state has been created, apparently not the first, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has thrown his support behind it.

Thanks, just checking. The other part of the question is even more evidently provincial, and as such I'll restrict it to the US, but what are the more successful methods used in court battles and trials with vastly skewed resources available on either side?

[Bauglir]

I expect it depends largely on the context of the trial. You're going to have vastly different laws depending on the kind of thing that's in question, and I doubt there are highly universal strategies other than "Throw money at lawyers".

[Morrigi]

The courts are perfect. You will be given a fair trial, then sent to jail for an inordinate amount of time. That is justice and is necessary for a free society.

How long?

[misko27]

Throwing money at lawyers, not being Guilty, and not looking like you're Guilty. You can do those things, congratulations, you're probably very safe.


Only 2 would be acceptable, 1 might be barely passable, and I suppose it happens that people without any get by. Like, sometimes.

[SalmonGod]

So I'm surprised I've noticed no other mentions on the forum about the death of Michael Hastings.  Anyone buy into the speculation that there was foul play involved?  I haven't seen any credible reports about the details of the accident, so I don't know what to believe.  There is a lot of information floating around that would be incredibly incriminating if it's true, and I don't think cars typically explode like that from an impact...

[GlyphGryph]

It does happen occasionally, though. Fairly rare, but cars do turn into fireballs sometimes. I do wonder if they are still planning on releasing the piece he was working on... I was under the impression he was close to finishing it.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The figure I heard is that about one in ten thousand car crashes result in an explosion.