Complete Decadence

Posted on | January 24, 2013 | 58 Comments

“You can kill half of your young men and repopulate your country in relatively short order. . . . But when you kill your young women . . . your country has no future.”
— Roxeanne de Luca, “Really, Leon Panetta? You want Sandra Fluke in combat?”

Have Americans become so decadent that they have lost all instinct for their preservation as a people? Well, 55 million abortions in the past 40 years would certainly seem to indicate this. And remember that a key issue in 2012 was Sandra Fluke’s “right” to free contraception, because it’s such a horrible thing when sex results in pregnancy. So this shouldn’t really surprise anyone:

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta is lifting the military’s official ban on women in combat, which will open up hundreds of thousands of additional front-line jobs to them, senior defense officials said Wednesday.

Oh, did you hear about the 11-year-old transgender who “transitioned” in kindergarten? This is the future America voted for: No future at all.

Category: Culture, Military

Comments

58 Responses to “Complete Decadence”

alanhenderson
January 24th, 2013 @ 11:06 am

I’m looking forward to “Life of Julia 2.0.”
Roxeanne de Luca
January 24th, 2013 @ 11:14 am

…and these are the people who believe in Darwinism. Do they not understand that they are about to be weeded out the gene pool due to their total inability (or lack of desire) to continue themselves?

Well, maybe they do. Or maybe they think that it’s acceptable collateral damage for weeding us out.
TexasJew
January 24th, 2013 @ 11:15 am

Wait until our first female soldier gets kidnapped then raped by 40 Taliban in video
Clever liberals..
Roxeanne de Luca
January 24th, 2013 @ 11:16 am

Yes, every female POW will get the Lara Logan treatment.

Perhaps liberals don’t mind, since their males wouldn’t move heaven and earth to stop a woman from being violated. Real men don’t sit around and watch women get gang-raped by their sworn enemies, nor do they try to put women in those situations to begin with.
TexasJew
January 24th, 2013 @ 11:37 am

And from what quarter was the demand for this
Israel does not put its female soldiers right at the front, btw
We will be the only nation that stupid.
Of course, we are the only nation stupid enough to elect a Barack Obama
Complete decadence indeed! « The Daley Gator
January 24th, 2013 @ 11:38 am

[…] women in combat, a topic I admit I have not really thought about, so I will reserve comment on that. So why am I linking this post? Well, at the very end of the post, McCain notes the story of Sadie. A transgender girl of 11, who […]
John Thomas
January 24th, 2013 @ 12:00 pm

Well, you can if you legalize polygamy. Math, yo.
rmnixondeceased
January 24th, 2013 @ 12:00 pm

Consider this: Two Democrats are responsible for the escalation of American involvement in the Vietnam conflict, JFK and LBJ by their policies and handling of said conflict ensnared us into a civil war caused by French colonialism. By their policies and mis-handling of that conflict, in excess of 58,000 US servicemembers lost their lives and untold others have suffered from PTSD and other disabilities (including loss of limbs, alcoholism, Agent Orange exposure, cancers and other psychological conditions) to the detriment of our society as a whole.
Now consider what the toll on our Republic and society would have been if women were in the front line combat units instead of only medical and non-combat roles.
And they called me a criminal!
McGehee
January 24th, 2013 @ 12:01 pm

When a Muslim sharia court beheads a teenaged rape victim for refusing to marry her assailant, American liberals utter not a peep.

When a Christian business owner voices support for his church’s teaching that abortion is the cold-blooded, commercialized snuffing of an innocent life, the Nazi comparisons get cranked up to 11.
Quartermaster
January 24th, 2013 @ 12:13 pm

They believe Darwinism, they don’t understand it. They believe a lot of fantasies they have no understanding of.
I knew this was coming. I didn’t know the timing, but I figured it would be in Zer0’s second term. Things like this are teh reason I tell young men to stay away, as in far away, from the military. The standards will continue to be dumbed down for women and men will die for it.
Mike G.
January 24th, 2013 @ 12:16 pm

Hepatitis C was also another malady inflicted on our soldiers during that era. Not even a known disease until the late eighties and no test for it until early nineties. A disease that might not manifest itself for twenty or thirty years. I should know because I have it. I wrote about it here; http://thatmrgguy.wordpress.com/2012/08/08/i-have-hepatitis-c-thanks-uncle-sam/
Four Decades of Decadence | hogewash
January 24th, 2013 @ 12:33 pm

[…] Decades of Decadence Posted on 24 January, 2013 by wjjhoge Stacy McCain has a post up about how societal decadence has led to a confusion of the proper complementary roles of men and […]
Christy Waters
January 24th, 2013 @ 12:48 pm

There are some things that men can do that women either can’t or shouldn’t. That doesn’t make us inferior, it makes us different and there’s nothing wrong with that. By trying to make women “equal” to men, libs are accepting the false premise that the natural traits of women are lesser than those of men.
rosalie
January 24th, 2013 @ 1:11 pm

I’m dreading it.
Roxeanne de Luca
January 24th, 2013 @ 2:11 pm

The ellipses indicate that my comments were not taken in their entirety. Here is the whole paragraph:

You can kill half of your young men and repopulate your country in
relatively short order. You can go all Old Testament and men can take
multiple wives; old men can marry young women who are desperate for a
husband; men whose wives pass away at a young age can remarry. But when
you kill your young women – and make no mistake, it will be young women
in combat – your country has no future. Liberals salivate over The Handmaid’s Tale,
the premise of which is that most women have become infertile. What
insanity has to possess you to create that situation by leading young
women to their slaughter in combat?

A man can impregnate his wife, go off to war, get killed or get his gonads shot off, and still have a child. A pregnant woman who dies will not have living progeny. To go all chem-nerd, it should be axiomatic that the number of healthy young woman is your rate-limiting step in creating the next generation.
20thCenturyVole
January 24th, 2013 @ 2:36 pm

“additional front-line jobs”? Seriously? It’s a freakin’ JOBS program?

Wanted: Bullet-stopper, no experience required
Bob Belvedere
January 24th, 2013 @ 2:40 pm

I don’t know where the Hell I was in August last year, but I missed that post.

Damn.
Tracy Coyle
January 24th, 2013 @ 2:42 pm

I’d wager money most would prefer me in the foxhole than Obama…
Tracy Coyle
January 24th, 2013 @ 2:42 pm

Seems like that is a problem men have….
Bob Belvedere
January 24th, 2013 @ 2:45 pm

This.
Wombat_socho
January 24th, 2013 @ 3:13 pm

Yeah, how unreasonable of us not to like the idea of our countrywomen and sisters in arms being raped.
K-Bob
January 24th, 2013 @ 3:15 pm

You’re totally not factoring in the Bene Tielax and their axlotl tanks, then.
Wombat_socho
January 24th, 2013 @ 3:17 pm

Yeah, doesn’t take much in the way of skill or strength to qualify for Berm Squad.
Tracy Coyle
January 24th, 2013 @ 3:17 pm

Did I miss something? Nature does not need every member of a species to reproduce to maintain or grow the species. if 10,000 women with the skill and ability to move to the front lines die, the remaining 150 MILLION women not there can probably carry on.

As for the men that will go all to pieces if a woman is captured…tell me…would you not do everything in your power if a MAN were captured?

Get a grip. Only in the most recent of history have women avoided death in war. I didn’t abdicate my responsibility for self defense when menses started…
K-Bob
January 24th, 2013 @ 3:19 pm

We’d all be better off if he was in combat, and not in the White House, screwing up everything he gets involved with.
Dana
January 24th, 2013 @ 3:35 pm

The truth is that this is nothing new. Women cannot be assigned to combat units, but they can be attached to combat units, and go into combat situations, and many already have, primarily, but not exclusively, as medics. Drivers, road crews, and helicopter pilots and crews have all been exposed to combat, and many of those soldiers have been female. In effect, what the outgoing Secretary is doing is letting policy and paperwork catch up to practice.

The integration of our female soldiers into combat situations didn’t start under Barack Hussein Obama; the military manpower shortage during the worst of the Iraq war did that, and George Bush was President and Donald Rumsfeld was the Secretary of Defense. It wasn’t done because the conservatives wanted it done, but because practical military necessity forced it on the Army.

It isn’t often that we can expect transparency and truth from the Obama Administration, but this is one of those rare times when they are making the policy more truthful, when they are actually saying what they are doing.
JeffS
January 24th, 2013 @ 3:38 pm

As a veteran, I’m going to make a point here that is not contrary to the intent of Stacy’s excellent post, but mayhaps to its spirit….

As one blogger put it, ” If they set standards that are standards for strength and endurance that are gender-neutral for the direct combat type jobs, I say have at it.”

If a woman wants to go infantry — and can handle the demands that we know exist — fine. Ditto combat engineers (my personal favorite), tankers, etc. Life sucks in the foxhole, but if someone wants to park their butts there, and they can do the job, let them.

A recent experiment by the Marines, where they allow women to go through their Infantry Officer Course, should demonstrate how many women will want to meet those standards. Time will tell on that one. Personally, I doubt all that many women will volunteer for front line combat jobs. People, I knew men who actively avoided that.

Frankly, though, I share Allan West’s distrust of the Obama Administration on this score. The standards are likely to be messed with to allow women in for the same of show, or to conduct a social experiment in lethal settings.

And lethal to more than the feckless females themselves. Lethal to their peers, to their unit, the mission, and ultimately, the nation.
richard mcenroe
January 24th, 2013 @ 3:40 pm

Actually, one of the first U POWS in Gulf ONE was a female, already in the service.
Steve in TN ™
January 24th, 2013 @ 4:09 pm

Uhm, didn’t that ALREADY happen during the 1st Iraq war and that female chopper pilot? Not Taliban and not on video, but still…
Steve in TN ™
January 24th, 2013 @ 4:10 pm

That’s the one.
ranchdancer
January 24th, 2013 @ 4:49 pm

IMHO liberals are trying their best to make it a gender neutral world..it’s a sick fantasy about everyone is equal.
Equality in their eyes is far different than reality in our world. Liberalism is a disease.
Dana
January 24th, 2013 @ 4:51 pm

I’d point out here that the first Persian Gulf War occurred in 1991, before the 1994 standards were published.
jakee308
January 24th, 2013 @ 4:54 pm

Actually, if you kill half your young men, your country will turn out like Great Britain; weak, leftist, statist, socialist and generally feminized into ineffectiveness politically in the world.

It’s what happened after WWII. Anyone want to wonder why GB is what it is today can find the roots in the brave men that were lost in WWII and perhaps because of those losses taking place so soon after those of WWI.

The US took less of a hit and so were able to rise above all the other countries.

Liberalism (promoted as an offensive measure by the USSR) succeeded in finally reducing us to the level of the rest of the western world. We won the war but lost the country sort of thing.

Obama’s just the cherry on the top. Enjoy the next 30 years of groveling before tyrants, despots and terrorists.
Ed Driscoll » Brave New World
January 24th, 2013 @ 5:11 pm

[…] Stacy McCain: “Oh, did you hear about the 11-year-old transgender who “transitioned” in kindergarten? […]
RichFader
January 24th, 2013 @ 5:53 pm

Sandra in combat? Heh. And heh again.

In the unlikely event Sandra ever goes in the service, it’ll be as a JAG officer. If she ever has to pick up and use a firearm, the situation will undoubtedly be well and truly FUBAR.

And going tranny at 5…dafuq?…dafuqinfuq? I didn’t even know what I wanted to do for *work* when I grew up when I was 5. Did you?
Mike G.
January 24th, 2013 @ 5:58 pm

You may have been enjoying our Southern hospitality at the time. Didn’t y’all visit a distillery or two about that time?
Mike G.
January 24th, 2013 @ 8:46 pm

Yeah, but you can bet your ass that the liberal women, the ones who believe in government paid contraception and abortion on demand won’t volunteer for the front lines. That’s dirty work for those conservative breeder women.
Wombat_socho
January 24th, 2013 @ 9:11 pm

There’s ample recent evidence that female soldiers can hack the infantry life for a few days, but they wear down a lot faster and don’t recover as quickly.
werewife
January 24th, 2013 @ 9:24 pm

Back in ’48, Israeli women did fight alongside men. That policy was changed when it was observed that the enemy would fight harder against units with women, both to attempt to capture said women, and to avoid the disgrace of being defeated by them. And if this doesn’t make obvious sense to you, you might be a Leftist.
Tracy Coyle
January 24th, 2013 @ 11:26 pm

How unreasonable of you to think we don’t like the bad things happening in our world as much as you or want any less to do something about it….I expect our troops to ‘rescue’ ANYONE captured with as much vigor and attention….
Eric Ashley
January 24th, 2013 @ 11:28 pm

Good chance this doesn’t last. There are certain Lefty ideas that are so anti-reality that as soon as the Left stops focusing on them, and puffing them up with hot air, that they collapse under the weight ot their own insanity.
Evi L. Bloggerlady
January 25th, 2013 @ 3:09 am

Well said. Yes, that shows moral decadence.
Evi L. Bloggerlady
January 25th, 2013 @ 3:16 am

Panetta’s decision is lame, arguably bad precedence, done for BS purposes, but compared to the many bad decisions of government it is still small potatoes.

Every Marine is a rifleman and there have been women Marines for a while. Even support staff end up on the front lines on occasion, planned or unplanned, it happens in war. If women want to serve, allowing those who want to go to the front is fair enough, provided they understand and accept what that entails.

It will be a small number. Provided it is voluntary and no show boating is involved, I do not have much problem with it. And the truth is there are some women who are tough as nails and could definitely hold their own. A broad who has the gumption to fight is worth more than a company of show boating John F’n Kerrys.
Quartermaster
January 25th, 2013 @ 7:20 am

Some units also broke when women were wounded. The problem came from both sides.

We also know what happens when women become POWs in the ME. The results are not fun for the women involved.
Quartermaster
January 25th, 2013 @ 7:20 am

Some units also broke when women were wounded. The problem came from both sides.

We also know what happens when women become POWs in the ME. The results are not fun for the women involved.
Quartermaster
January 25th, 2013 @ 7:23 am

It is reasonable to expect our country to not place women in the place where they can be captured in the first place. Only a barbaric country will intentionally expose women to combat. Such a country is unworthy of defense. In our case, there are several other things that render our country unworthy of defense.

Eventually, an immoral people will not be defended at all, and they pass into history.
Bob Belvedere
January 25th, 2013 @ 7:41 am

Mid-July, so there’s no excuse.
Bob Belvedere
January 25th, 2013 @ 7:58 am

I understand your sentiments, Evi, but they’re accepting of the Leftist Narrative.

No peoples worthy of being labeled ‘civilized’ puts their women in combat. Men and women are not equal mentally and physically – they are different and each has their areas where they excel. War is the duty of men. We are charged with dying to protect our families because, when it comes to our kind surviving, it is the women who matter most, as Roxeanne has written.

We each have our roles to play. Men and women complement each other. They are equal only in the sight of God. American and British Law rightfully and justifiably don’t treat the two as equal in many areas.
Bob Belvedere
January 25th, 2013 @ 8:10 am

A man would do whatever he could within reason to free his brother-in-arms, but it is understood between men that, at some point, you may have to break off the effort for the good of the campaign and/or the unit.

A male soldier will instinctively react to a female soldier being taken captive differently because she represents the future of his kind [ie: what he is fighting for] and because more vile humiliations can be visited upon a woman than a man.

Time and space do not permit a fuller explanation, so mMay I suggest reading MULIERIS DIGNITATEM by John Paul The Great…

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081988_mulieris-dignitatem_en.html
Evi L. Bloggerlady
January 25th, 2013 @ 10:03 am

Still, let’s see how it turns out. I am not accepting the leftist narrative. But I am willing to look objectively at real data.

I agree women and men are not interchangeable. Cows produce milk. You really do not want to milk a bull.