Even if true you are most likely Army which doesn't qualify you as some kind of expert on Marine training.
Small world. I was at Ft Bliss at the time as well. I served in 2-1 ADA with SFC Robert Dowdy, who was the Battalion Motor Pool NCOIC, when we deployed to Saudi Arabia in support of Southern Watch. We were having lunch together and he expressed a desire to retire when we redeployed. Of course he made the E8 list before we redeployed, accepted the promotion and was transferred to 11th Brigade and eventually was laterally promoted to 1SG of the 507th. He was killed in the ambush.
Why does the military lower standards for white men? Black men are stronger. The claim that white combat soldiers will perform as lethally as black combat soldiers over an extended deployment entails a denial of biological reality. One only has to look at professional contact sports such as football to recognize the physical inferiority of white men. Black women also are stronger than white women. How many more Americans in combat will lose their lives for the military downgrading standard for white people?
The average black American can bench press more than the average white American
Of course weight and strength are not the same thing. In order to compare the races in strength, I found a study of police officers which compared the bench pressing ability of black and white officers, both at the time they were recruited, and after years on the job. The study found that upon recruitment, the average white man could bench press 84.2 kg (standard deviation = 21.2), the average black could bench press 95.1 kg (SD = 24.6). In other words, black men are 0.51 SD stronger than white men. If we convert strength to farmilliar IQ scale, where the white mean is set at 100 and the white SD is set at 15, then white men have a (sex adjusted) SQ (Strength Quotient) of 100, and black men have an SQ of 108.
Both races improved after years of on the job training, but the gap remained. Black women could also bench press more than white women, both at recruitment, and especially after training in both groups.
Blacks dominate American body building
What happens when we move from the average and look at the extremes? Here’s a list of the top 15 body builders of all time. For apples to apples comparison, I excluded all the non-Americans, to make a list of the top AMERICAN body builder’s of all time:
1. Ronnie Coleman (Black)
2. Arnold Schwarzenegger (White)
3. Kai Greene (Black)
4. Phillip Health (Black)
5. Flex Wheeler (Black)
6. Johnnie O. Jackson (Black)
7. Lee Haney (Black)
8. Lou Ferrigno (White)
9. Kevin Levrone (Black)
So blacks are only 12.6% of America, but 78% of the top body builders in American history.
https://pumpkinperson.com/2016/08/08/which-race-is-physically-strongest/
If you can't adjust it for women then you can't adjust it for age, either. Lots of senior NCOs won't like that....
I see no wannabe Rambo's in them pictures just the difference between those that were coddled in coed boot and those that got a boot up their asses when they screwed up. There were NO Berghdahls in VN either.
May I ask why when their is evidence directly contradicting what he says would you believe him. The only reason I can see for it is because it's what you want to be true facts be damned.Sorry, this is a little bit different than opinion threads on this site. It is pointless to have a conversation with someone who passes themselves of as a original source. Even if true you are most likely Army which doesn't qualify you as some kind of expert on Marine training. I have much more faith in Gen Bohm who is responsible for the Marine training course. Sure I am naïve in the area of military preparedness. That's why I trust what Gen Bohm has to say. I respect your opinion but have to believe that's all it is.
May I ask why when their is evidence directly contradicting what he says would you believe him. The only reason I can see for it is because it's what you want to be true facts be damned.
Are you kidding? IF the next President is a Democrat - the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Starr will be a transgendered female who will order troops to turn in their assault weapons and arm themselves with ***** hats.There was a headline on Drudge this morning that claims the Green Berets are also lowering their standards in order to have more diversity, especially women.
This is a very serious matter.
If President Trump were not so politically vulnerable at the moment, he might be expected to stop the lowering of standards.
I was especially shocked a few years ago when the government decided to have women serve aboard submarines. Common sense dictates that it is crazy to put men and women together in such cramped quarters.
As one can guess, there has been at least one scandal reported in the media. No doubt, other scandals are being covered up.
Hopefully, the next president (a Democrat, of course) will have the courage to (quietly) stop this lowering of standards. It's one thing to ensure diversity in, say, the entertainment field. It's quite another matter when it comes to our military forces.
Yeah, this problem has been percolating for decades but it's all Trump's fault.I don't think Trump gives a rats' ass. I had hoped he'd let Mattis fix things, but then he stomped all over his own dick on the matter with the transgender bru-ha-ha and the idiocy about how expensive it was.
But yeah. We're going to let our military become less lethal, in order to make people feel better about themselves. Because making people feel better about themselves is why we have a military.
Bull****. I've spent way to much time with everyone re-re-recleaning our rifles to ever believe that.While the standards may be the same, Soldiers in non-combat units don't spend nearly the time on these skills as combat arms Soldiers do.
Adjusting things to exclude half your personnel is exactly like adjusting things to make it easier for the elderly.No.
Adjusting things to make it easier for women is not the same as adjusting things to compensate for experience retention.
Bull****. I've spent way to much time with everyone re-re-recleaning our rifles to ever believe that.
Instead, I would say that unit, in particular, had poor leadership, from the Commander on down. Non-combat MOS ≠ undisciplined, as you claim.
Sure seems like you are, though. You argue the unit got lost because they didn't have basic proficiency in land nav (I agree), and then you said they didn't have that basic proficiency because they were not a combat MOS. Meaning only combat MOSs have even a basic level of proficiency in land nav.I never said they were undisciplined. I served in combat arms units and non-combat arms units. Soldiers is combat arms unit spend more time training in combat related tasks and are thereby more proficient in these tasks.
You are confused as well as wrong.Adjusting things to exclude half your personnel is exactly like adjusting things to make it easier for the elderly.
That's an opinion, not a fact.You are confused as well as wrong.
Adjustments for experience is far more worthy than making adjustments for those who are not and may even be detrimental.
Doh!That's an opinion, not a fact.
Which branch did you serve in?Doh!
iLOL Run along and take your lack of understanding with you.
iLOLWhich branch did you serve in?
Well, you don't see me running around telling people who were in a profession that they don't know what they're talking about regarding that profession.iLOL
All you have done is confirmed your lack of understanding again.
Like the branch I served in matters as what I said would apply to any branch.
Doh! That is not what happened.Well, you don't see me running around telling people who were in a profession that they don't know what they're talking about regarding that profession.
Really? You want 3rd party data to show that those who are educated/trained, with years experience, are more important/valuable for retention purposes to justify the adjustments spoken about, and are therefore not the same as making adjustments for those who do not have such value? Really? That is what you want?So, lacking experience, do you have any 3rd party data supporting your view?
So you have no experience to draw from, nore 3rd party data. Is this typical of your posting style on the forum?Doh! That is not what happened.
Thus again displaying your lack of understanding.
Really? You want 3rd party data to show that those who are educated/trained, with years experience, are more important/valuable for retention purposes to justify the adjustments spoken about, and are therefore not the same as making adjustments for those who do not have such value? Really? That is what you want?
You can't figure that out on your own? Wow!
iLOL You are digging your hole even further.So you have no experience to draw from, nore 3rd party data. Is this typical of your posting style on the forum?
iLOL You are digging your hole even further.So you have no experience to draw from, nore 3rd party data. Is this typical of your posting style on the forum?
Do you, or do you not understand how a person with training and experience is more valuable when compared to someone without such?
iLOLLooks like it is. Well, it was nice meeting you
Adjusting things to exclude half your personnel is exactly like adjusting things to make it easier for the elderly.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?