Posted on 02/09/2016 5:57:06 AM PST by doldrumsforgop
Yeah, let’s delay that child bearing in a country that has a government importing 3rd worlders because its own citizens refuse to reproduce. And let’s get those women killed in warfare to continue the depopulation of middle class and working-class Americans - that’ll work to improve the country!
Yeah, I can see that!
See the picture above, read story below - there is no way a woman can compete on the battlefield under combat arms.
The Great Social Experiment Takes the Field - In the War of 2020
http://usdefensewatch.com/2016/02/the-great-social-experiment-takes-the-field-in-the-war-of-2020/
Those other arguments are for non-combat jobs, to work, to get paid; it is not a matter of staying home or being in the military - this is about living or dying, your life or your death and those around you.
You do realize that the biggest push for women in combat roles are coming from women in the service, mainly officers, who feel that they are being overlooked for promotion because they lack combat experience.
But there were no women in the trenches on the western front which is where the women in combat arms will serve. The Soviets were not that stupid.
I like the one on the right in the boonie hat. She’s flashing her magazine well at me.
I have an idea. Make the women register too. Each year, draft a few hundred of both/all genders. Use as one of the selectors those who took notsh!t majors in college and are behind in repaying their school loans. STEM majors are 4F.
Good morning, Miss Marmelstein... in fine form, I see.
But seriously here, I’m not referring to an entire career... perhaps a two-year stint in the military at age 18 or so. I hardly see how that depopulates the middle class, destroys the country, ends mankind, etc.
yes they were. Where does a field medic serve, on the front line and in the trenches. The only difference between a soviet female field medic and a soviet male infantryman was one had a medical kit, the other a papasha. The risk of death at the hands of the Germans was the same. When the infantry went over the top, the field medics went also.
Unhuh
You fail to address the merits of the argument, much less present a cogent one of your own. WTH is wrong with doing a 2-year stint at age 18 or so?
How about I go with your approach.... You hate the military, don’t you? You want it to be undermanned and weakened, don’t you? See how the hyperbole works?
Of course, you don’t. Because you’re just popping off without thinking the situation through. We need more childbearing by younger women - not putting off childbearing so that middle-class white women can satisfy some sick political agenda.
It’s all about the big federal government controlling the citizenry.
Next they will be saying who can have children and when and how many.
And the society with no moral compass will go along with it because the government is God and knows best.
Yet you still fail to address my question... why is it wrong to wait until the early 20s after serving a short stint in the military? Think it through, MM, and give a real answer this time.
That is because we have two very broad oceans on either side of us and two very weak nations to the North an the South. We are very well insulated from direct invasion.
The Soviets and Israelis are not that fortunate. They had to employ women in large numbers to maintain their very existence. I suspect that should we ever have to face that dire a circumstance a lot of traditional male only military positions would fall by the wayside.
See post #17 from BuckeyeMcFrog
Not to worry , all the women who are captured will soon be bearing children although not willingly.
Yes, we already are a barbaric nation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.