In response to:

Women Serving in Combat Positions Is a Batty Idea

Original Saepe_Expertus Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 1:41 PM
RGR Do you know the word 'obfuscate'? Do you have a clue at all? My thought is no. FACT: Training at any level, for any military position, is based around what skill sets and physical capacities the particular function requires. That is why there IS BASIC training. A Marine Recruit becomes a Marine when he or she completes BASIC training. At that point they are considered to be physically fit, smartly trained, well-disciplined, basically trained Marines! NOW...training for Recruiting Duty bears NO resemblance to Force Recon! Motor-T looks for different skills than a Mortarman. You still don't have a clue, do you? Just here to toss out smarmy comments and attempt to confuse the issues. Would you like to buy a vowel?

Last Thursday Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and other U.S. military leaders lifted the ban on women serving in combat positions. I, for one, think this is a great idea and have a few modest proposals, if the brass inside the beltway is open to suggestions, on how they should deploy the dames (and whom they should deploy).

First off, if you truly want to eviscerate the enemy—namely Muslims—then I propose sending the most nerve grating and foul women Hollywood has to offer straight into hot zones as our forward armies. I’m a thinkin’ starting off with Roseanne Barr, Joy...