4:44 pm, April 27, 2015

FederalNewsRadio.com - Purpose of Comments statement Click to show

Hubbard Radio, LLC encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comment boards following articles, blog posts and other content can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior here. We encourage your thoughtful comments which:

  • Have a positive and constructive tone
  • Are on topic, clear and to-the-point
  • Are respectful toward others and their opinions

Hubbard Radio, LLC reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

  • 1
       

  • Military plans to revise requirements for combat occupational specializations
    Jeremiah
    "The order Panetta and Dempsey signed prohibits physical standards from being lowered simply to allow women to qualify for jobs closer to the battlefront. But the services are methodically reviewing and revising the standards for many jobs, including strength and stamina, in order to set minimum requirements for troops to meet regardless of their sex." This appears to beg the question as to the adequacy and indeed necessity of the existing strength/stamina "minimum requirements." These were originally set after intensive research into the physical challenges faced in active combat ooperations in order to help ensure that mission accomplishment goals could better be met through weeding out those whio lacked the requisite stamina or strength to help achieve those goals. The above quote's assurance that any lowering of standards will be applied equally to both sexes is NOT reassuring, as it is clear that the bar - under strong PC urging - will most probably be lowered significantly, and that it raises the likelihood that troops in active combat ooperations will be increasingly jeopardized accordingly - all in the interest of supposed sexual "equality." Combat operations are totally unlike the 9 to 5 world of civilian work, but this inconvenient fact is ignored by the "usual suspects" in the ovrarching presumed interest of fostering women's military careers. Soldiers, sailors, and marines in particular will pay the "butcher's bill" in future casualties for any misguided easing of combat-essential physical skills and abilities standards.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }