Female captive first since Pentagon altered rule.

Washington Times ^ | March 25, 2003 | Joyce Howard Price

[bonesmccoy]

One of the five U.S. soldiers captured by Iraqi forces and questioned on Iraqi television is the first female POW since the Clinton administration's military leaders repealed a rule barring servicewomen from positions with a high risk of encountering enemy fire or capture.

[bonesmccoy]

Dittos!

[bonesmccoy]

Comment: Can't understand why you are getting slammed. Stick to your guns.

I'm getting slammed by a bunch of borg-liberals who are transplants from DU and haven't yet figured out how to extract that DU-implant from their Gray Matter. LOL

[CyberCowboy777]

You fail to see the disadvantages.

What is fair to the individual is not always what is best for the species. In most things I do not care - in the voluntary paid position of protection of my kids I do.

Equality is not a new concept nor a battle recently fought. You are ignoring history.

[CyberCowboy777]

Voluntary position of servitude?

[Servant of the Nine]

I disagree with anything that can be dealt with that decreases the chances of our front lines.

If you were around when the services were integrated, you would know that it had a terrible effect on morale and unit cohesion. It was not till near the end of the Vietnam war over 20 years later that a new generation that was used to thinking of blacks as equals came along that integration became a positive thing for military effectiveness.

Of course standards should not be lowered. Of course all who have gotten positions they can't fill by afirmative action should be removed.

Every person, should have to compete as an individual and meet the original standards for any position they want to attain. Every person should have a right to compete for that position.

Will it cause some lessening of effeciency for a while. yes it will, so did integrating blacks. Get over it.

So9

[nopardons]

I didn't " put words in your mouth "; read what you posted.

Hunting and war are different. That you are unable to comprehend that this is so, explains quite a lot. Hunting has nothing to do with territorial rights. Linonesses do NOT " battle " the hyenas, who, more often than not, make away with the kill. The hyenas, OTOH, DO engage the linonesses in " battle ". The lionesses don't fight back.

As I stated, I have seen your posts ( and no, not ALL of them, which I also DID state, quite clearly ) , none of which, were you correct in. That's my opinion and I'm allowed to have one. :-)

[bonesmccoy]

Since you and the other libs on this thread are arguing biology, let me point out that the nine months of "disability" is unique to females. That "disability" is called "pregnancy". Now, you feminists can call it all you want, but "pregnancy" is legally defined as a "disability".

Do you seriously expect me (Joe Taxpayer) to support putting women on the front line (or even near it) and then find that she's pregnant and must be withdrawn from duties?

Excuse me!

Since the taxpayers PAY FOR training and equipment, if the majority of the nation rejects putting women on the front line... well... then women aren't gonna be on the front line.

Your side of the argument still hasn't answered my two questions... why? Got no answer?

I know you must...

[CyberCowboy777]

Again

The integration of blacks and women in frontline positions are not the same. That is clear - going into the dynamics of the former is only going to muddy the waters of this issue.

The basic concept was dealt with - that the two are not the same.

The reaction of men to men (even of different color) is quite and measurably different than that of men to women.

[bonesmccoy]

What next? getting rid of guys with glasses, or those that are under six feet tall?

Physiologic parameters for job functions are a well-established paradigm. It is NOT prejudicial to prevent employment of people with certain disabilities or inabilities for certain jobs. Certainly, there is no right to be a fighter pilot. Similarly, the front lines are meant for fighters who qualify. Physiologic parameters for the men in that position exist. Not all men are qual'd to be there.

[CyberCowboy777]

goodnight all

[Servant of the Nine]

I'm still waiting on you to lay out yours as to why it's such a great idea to send women off to be raped.

Because they are citizens of free will.
If they chose that path, and meet all the requirements a man would have to meet, then we either send them, or modify the constitution to make them less that full equal citizens.

Or we hypocritically partronize them:
"Thar Thar liddle lady, yew wudn't wanna do nothin like thet wud yew?"
pretending they are full citizens while denying them the opportunity to even try to meet high military standards

So9

[bonesmccoy]

You might not say you're a liberal or socialist... but you are espousing socialist theory.

http://www.socialismtoday.org/51/men.html

Quoting their rhetoric (which you have been parroting):

"The struggle for equality and even more so for the true liberation of women and men must involve the overthrow of the current economic and social system, and the removal of exploitation based on class. The struggle for gender equality and the struggle for socialism not only can be combined, but are inescapably combined. The very process of this struggle, from strikes at individual workplaces to the united movement of working-class and many middle-class women and men, will change attitudes and gender relations. But only a new society will provide the opportunity to develop a new 'gender landscape' on our terms."

[farmfriend]

you feminists can call it all you want

I am not a feminist. I am a masculinist. I am an advocate for mens rights. I have no problems with giving pregnancy tests before combat.

Do you seriously expect me (Joe Taxpayer) to support putting women on the front line (or even near it) and then find that she's pregnant and must be withdrawn from duties?

You seem willing to support fatherless children.

[bonesmccoy]

Great comments! God bless you buddy!

[Servant of the Nine]

The reaction of men to men (even of different color) is quite and measurably different than that of men to women.

Yeah, very few men want to lynch a woman for comming into their company area. That was the feeling in the white US military towards blacks for a generation.

I don't think you will find either silly galantry or prejudice towards women among the young people in the military today. They are willing to accept anyone who meets equal standards as an equal and treat them that way. The only complaint I have ever heard from any of them is about lowered standards and afirmative action.

The complaints I hear about women in the ranks almost all come from old men who aren't there.

So9

[bonesmccoy]

what the heck are you talking about?

Deal with the questions I'm posing...
otherwise deal with yourself first!

[nopardons]

Is it " patronizing ", to tell a blind person, that he/she shouldn't be a pilot ? Is it " patronizing ", to tell a man that he should forget about giving birth to a child ? You keep talking about women, who meet all the same requirements as men. It is factual, that women, in the military, today, do NOT have to MEET THE SAME REQUIREMENTS THAT THE MEN DO !

Let's say that you are in an hotel, on vacation, on the 15th floor. Two firefighters will attempt to save you/ carry you down the stairs. One is a man, the other is a woman. Which one do you want to reach you first ? Think VERY carefully about your answer and do NOT answer based on " equality of requirements " ... there aren't any !

[farmfriend]

You might not say you're a liberal or socialist... but you are espousing socialist theory.

If you believe that then I have wasted my time because you will never understand my point. Just because socialist theory espouses gender equality does not make gender equality itself bad. That is just ridiculous.

[nopardons]

ALL white men, in the military wanted to lynch the blacks ? In what universe ? Your abject lack of historical knowledge is mind boggling; to say the least. And you said " for a generation " . That is even MORE absurd !

[nopardons]

There isn't " gender equality ", biologically. You keep on posting feminazi , jingoistic claptrap. And, just for the record, I have been a suffregist ( there IS a HUGE difference , between them and the suffregettes and the later feminists. ) all of my life.