Of course it is okay to say so, if we have good evidence to suggest it. I contend that this study is not good evidence and overlooks some variables that were not controlled for. Your conclusion may still be correct and this study may be enough to gain an exemption to the impending mandate but when I try to look at the study objectively, I see big holes. And I am not the only one. The below interview excerpt was from NPR interviewing Navy Secretary Ray Mabus. http://www.npr.org/2015/09/11/43938...ay-mabus-takes-issue-with-marine-combat-study The Navy Secretary is saying that besides completing training there were no other formal standards for men to meet in order to be assigned to combat positions? I find this hard to believe but that was an assumption I had that was wrong. It was simply assumed that completing the training met that soldiers (men or women) met whatever assumed standards there were even though they clearly did not. This casts some serious doubts on this study.
"A congressman who is a combat veteran and Ranger graduate has asked the Pentagon's top Army leader to produce documents related to the performance of the females who began Ranger School at Fort Benning, Georgia earlier this year. In a letter Rep. Steve Russell, R-Okla., gave outgoing Army Secretary John McHugh until September 25 to produce documents revealing the women's test scores, evaluations, injuries, pre-training and more. The letter was delivered to McHugh's Pentagon office on September 15..... The congressman is concerned because "sources at Fort Benning are coming forward to say the Army lied about women in Ranger School, that the women got special treatment and played by different rules," according to a Capitol Hill source with knowledge of why the letter was crafted. "These folks say one thing, the Army says another. Congress needs to know the truth, and Russell reached out to find it." Ranger instructors – who said they were ordered to remain silent, and fear for their careers for speaking out – gave Russell's office specific examples of the special treatment the women received, the Capitol Hill source says. The school consists of three phases: Benning, which lasts 21 days and includes water survival, land navigation, a 12-mile march, patrols, an obstacle course and others; Mountain, which lasts 20 days, and includes rigorous mountain training like assaults, ambushes, mountaineering and patrols; Florida/Swamp, which lasts 17 days and covers waterborne operations. (So the course is normally 62 days but Griest and Haver were recycled a number of times and completed the school in about 4 months) The instructors say that among other things, the women did not carry the same amount of equipment as the men, did not take their turn carrying the heavy machine guns and were given intensive pre-training that was not offered to men. In addition, men who repeatedly failed crucial phases of the school were sent home while the women were allowed to redo those phases over and over, sources say. "
I have been to Israel and it isn't a hoax. When almost every young girl has to serve there are plenty of hot ones. Particularly in Israel where they have imported millions of Eastern Europeans.
I have seen these photos, and I have no reason the believe they are not really photos of girls in the army. Also those girls are mostly border guards and checkpoint security and such. They are always on trains and standing around bus stations, I don't think they send them on combat missions very often. At any time in Israel you are never more than a few hundred yards away from a college aged kid with a rifle.
