Nice 20/20 about our glorious airforce

[mjolnir]

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020...ions030228.html

So I went and read this, since I missed the show.  Many of you know that I just graduated from USAFA last May.  And honestly, I have to say this is the biggist pile of horse dung I've ever seen.  

The Academy is a pretty close knit place.  There are only 4,000 cadets, as opposed to big universities with 40,000 students.  I'm not saying you get to know everybody, but when there are only 2 dorm buildings for all 4000 cadets (and you're assigned to a squadron of around 100-120 people, you switch squadrons part way through your time there, so that doubles the number of people that you're required to know at a minimum), you get to know a pretty healthy majority of the people.  With that said, I never heard of anything like this.  I was just your average Joe Blow cadet, wasn't really affiliated with any specific group or clique (yes, there were plenty and they were quite distinct).  

The media is trying to make a lot more of this than what's really there, just like they did with the big drug scandal two years ago.  Go ask any other college in the country if they'd be happy having a drug ring on their campus that consisted of a whole whopping 13 people, and they'd say hell yes.  I'm not saying that rape is not a problem if it happens in small numbers, so don't try to misquote me there.  I'm just saying that the media likes to amplify everything when it's a service academy under the microscope.

If there were any legitimate rapes that took place, that's inexcusable.  The guys commiting them should be court martialed and sent on their merry way to Levinworth.  But I think the point has been made that PC roadkill has gotten so bad that some of these guys had no reason to think what they were doing could be considered rape, until the girl changed her mind a few days or weeks later.

But now, just to add some fuel to the fire, let's go through the list of things that these people were doing wrong according to the AFCWIs (Air Force Cadet Wing Instructions).

1.  Alcohol in the cadet area, especially in the dorms.  Completely prohibited no matter how old you are or what rank you hold.

2.  Sex in the dorms, consentual or not, also prohibited.  Both parties should be punished equally.

3.  Freshmen dealing with upperclassmen in anything other than a professional manner, and vice versa.  This is fraternization and is considered no different than officers having unprofessional relationships with enlisted.  It's wrong on both parties involved, even more so for the upperclassmen who know better.  I watched a guy who was about to cross commission into the Army and go into Ranger school lose his slot and get sent to Army intel because it came out that in his last couple of months before graduation he was dating a freshman girl.

Had these cadets been bothered to follow the rules that are in place (for good reason), this would be a non issue.  And I apply that to both the accusers and the accused.  If these girls think it's unfair that they get disciplinary hits for drinking and having sex in the dorms because they're claiming rape, they're delusional.  The rapist will be dealt with accordingly, but in the meantime, the girl still broke many regulations in the first place to lead to that situation.  None of these sound like they were spontaneous "grab a total stranger and drag them into a dark alley" kind of rapes.  And as for the little bit about the health care people encouraging them to take birth control and giving the old "wink-wink-nudge-nudge" about it being for their inevitable rape.......would it help if I got some female friends of mine from the zoo to come here and tell you what a load that is, or will you just take my word for it?

Flame away.  I expect it.  But nothing Barbara Walters says is going to make me believe that this toejam is even close to true.

[lazs2]

kanth..   you and I both know that if there is any testing that it is historical that women will not be tested equally and, if they are... it is only because the standards have been lowered... take for instance firemen.   it used to be that they had to carry a 150-200 lb dummy 50 yards 9firemans carry) that requirement was dropped for everyone... the standards were lowered rather than as you say.... "getting excelence'

certainly there are male combatants that are not up to the job for varius reasons... testing is not done (outside of basic)because every one of em is capable... physically and... you need a lot of cannon fodder...  you can't poick and choose... but you can generalize for expediancy.   It is far better to say..."  well... we know that every male who gets through basic has the physical ability to hand to hand but since very few women do it is not worth all the extra testing and hassle and special treatment down the road and problems simply to have a minute fraction of a percent of em in our combat force".

now... you might have a case if you take special forces..  if they can pass the special forces, say, navy seal, ranger, training then... let em fight I guess... I mean look what bad tulips the women were in "alien".  Point is...

the more exclusive and small the force the more it is able, and needs to, seperate the wheat from the chafe.

pilots... women should make lousy pilots.. their eyesight is worse than mens and they can't track fast moving objects as well as men.   This is fact.  it is not automatic tho.   If you had an airfordce of several million planes and pilots you would be well served by just forbidding women... training would go faster and smoother..  but... we have lots of time to train so.... give em a shot.. some soviet women did very well in WWII ... problem is... in reality... women are coddled in for PC purpsoses in our AF... somtimes with terrible results.  but at the very least... disruptive.
lazs

[lazs2]

and.... so far as crime and men... you are absolutely correct.   women know nothing of crime and therefore... have a poor grasp of what is going on in a criminals mind..  that is one of my key points in ending womens sufferage.
lazs

[Kanth]

Originally posted by lazs2
that requirement was dropped for everyone... the standards were lowered rather than as you say.... "getting excelence'

 Lowering the standards has nothing to do with the womans performance laz, it has to do with the administration allowing people who cannot pass the test in.  This kind of problem isn't solved by removing the women it's solved by removing the administration.
 

certainly there are male combatants that are not up to the job for varius reasons... testing is not done (outside of basic)because every one of em is capable... physically and... you need a lot of cannon fodder...  you can't poick and choose... but you can generalize for expediancy.   It is far better to say..."  well... we know that every male who gets through basic has the physical ability to hand to hand but since very few women do it is not worth all the extra testing and hassle and special treatment down the road and problems simply to have a minute fraction of a percent of em in our combat force".

Okay here ya go, if they don't get thru the same basic as the men then like the men who have failed they aren't up to the job..basic doesn't just weed out the frail men, it would weed out the women as well.  Also before you enter the military you pick your job and they will measure you to make sure you fit the height and weight requirements (as well as not having any medical conditions) so in fact they do test before basic training.

What I'm saying is that if she can't pass basic, just like the men, there is no hassle further on down the road. people who can't cut it are already weeded out.

now... you might have a case if you take special forces..  if they can pass the special forces, say, navy seal, ranger, training then... let em fight I guess... I mean look what bad tulips the women were in "alien".  Point is...

the more exclusive and small the force the more it is able, and needs to, seperate the wheat from the chafe.

the more specialized the training the less people get in, for men and women...btw "alien" was more tv and not real life.

pilots... women should make lousy pilots.. their eyesight is worse than mens and they can't track fast moving objects as well as men.   This is fact.

This I'd like you to show me, I don't find this information anywhere on google

 it is not automatic tho.   If you had an airfordce of several million planes and pilots you would be well served by just forbidding women... training would go faster and smoother..  but... we have lots of time to train so.... give em a shot..

so are you saying that all women learn slower as well?

some soviet women did very well in WWII ...

fact is women in OUR military do very well also, but we'd never have known that if they weren't allowed to try.

problem is... in reality... women are coddled in for PC purpsoses in our AF... somtimes with terrible results.  but at the very least... disruptive.
lazs

Problem is, if standards are changed and women are coddled it's not by women who are testing to get the job, it's by the people administering the test.  So, if you want to fix the problem, fix those folks.

because as we alrady know, women make excellent pilots.

[Kanth]

If that is one of your key points, you maybe in trouble.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/women/women1/1.html

I said that males commit more violent crimes than women, not that women know nothing of crime.  Or I would have said that violent crimes would be wiped out by locking men in camps.

but that is not the case.

I'm sure some of this is on tv as well, for your review.

The fact is, criminals and the people who deal with them know more about crime than non-criminals.  Also not gender exclusive.

Originally posted by lazs2
and.... so far as crime and men... you are absolutely correct.   women know nothing of crime and therefore... have a poor grasp of what is going on in a criminals mind..  that is one of my key points in ending womens sufferage.
lazs

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Kanth
I said that males commit more violent crimes than women, not that women know nothing of crime.  Or I would have said that violent crimes would be wiped out by locking men in camps.

Come on Kanth, I know this is something that all women would like to do, maybe an occasional temporary release for...uh...good behavior.

[Kanth]

I think you know way more about women than I do

Originally posted by AKIron
Come on Kanth, I know this is something that all women would like to do, maybe an occasional temporary release for...uh...good behavior.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Kanth
I think you know way more about women than I do

Well...maybe it's just me that all women would like locked up.


and Lazs

[lazs2]

kanth.. i think the problem here is that you are dealing with what should be and I am dealing with what actually is.

in every situation, be it police, fire or military... where women are now allowed to participate and were not before... the standards have been lowered.   these groups have become less not more... the contribution of the women is... to have a less capable force.   I won't argue that it is possible to find a small fraction of a percent of women capable of filling those roles..... only that it is not worth the effort on the one hand and that it invariably lowers the standards on the other.

as too the article you point out... it shows that some women are capable of crime.   It fails to get around the fact that it is still a tiny fraction of a percent of the violent crimes committed by males... rape alone... assualt..

so far as boot camp..  just getting through boot camp does not mean that you have the upper body strength to take on a male opponent.   it simply weeds out the worst... women can make it through boot and not have the upper body strength needed.   Allmost all the men will tho.   And.... I don't think anyone here will disagree that boot itself has become less strenuous with much lower physical standards.   I am sure that much of that can be blamed on the expanded role of women in the military.
lazs

[lazs2]

iron... there might be a few but... not ones who know me.   I have allways treated women fairly well.    I don't treat them equally since that would be rediculous and unfair to both of us.   I have hit a whole lot of men in my time but no women.  Women have probly given me more reason.   Also... women have never had any compunction about hitting me that i can recall.

I fear that they will vote me in jail tho.   Their votes allmost invariably tend to outlaw any activity that I might enjoy and allways for the same reason... for my own good.    I can't think of anything where my vote has been the same as the womans vote (majority of women) so.... as a purely selfish thing, ending womens sufferage would only be a good thing for me.   And since I am so rarely wrong about anything....  It would obviously be good for the country too.   What more proof does anyone need?
lazs

[Kanth]

I try not to use some words

including:

all, never, always

 perhaps you and lazs should hang out and bond or something

Originally posted by AKIron
Well...maybe it's just me that all women would like locked up.


and Lazs

[AKIron]

Good thing I kept my day job.

[lazs2]

kanth.. if either you or iron are ever in my area... email me and we will hook up.   I am an equal opportunity bonder.
lazs

[Kanth]

Originally posted by lazs2
kanth.. i think the problem here is that you are dealing with what should be and I am dealing with what actually is.

I think you've got that backwards. Women are in the military, able to vote and fighting fires.  

in every situation, be it police, fire or military... where women are now allowed to participate and were not before... the standards have been lowered.   these groups have become less not more... the contribution of the women is... to have a less capable force.

In any case that standards have been lowered for any reason it has not been by the women who are in these positions. If they want the standards raised, they should raise them.

  I won't argue that it is possible to find a small fraction of a percent of women capable of filling those roles..... only that it is not worth the effort on the one hand and that it invariably lowers the standards on the other.

and I'll still argue that the weeding outprocess takes care of both males and females that cannot cut the mustard with no extra effort.

as too the article you point out... it shows that some women are capable of crime.   It fails to get around the fact that it is still a tiny fraction of a percent of the violent crimes committed by males... rape alone... assualt..

I had already said that it's majorily males committing the violent crimes. You said women know "nothing" of crime (not even specifying violent crimes)

you are completely wrong.

so far as boot camp..  just getting through boot camp does not mean that you have the upper body strength to take on a male opponent.   it simply weeds out the worst... women can make it through boot and not have the upper body strength needed.   Allmost all the men will tho.

 If you cannot pass your tests including physical you flunk out, male and female alike.

  And.... I don't think anyone here will disagree that boot itself has become less strenuous with much lower physical standards.   I am sure that much of that can be blamed on the expanded role of women in the military.
lazs

 If standards again have been dropped it can be blamed on the people who are dropping the standards.

Once again it's they who must raise them up and if people can't pass they fail....it's very simple.

[AKIron]

Maybe the next con Lazs, only slight chance I may go tho.