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forces and questioned on Iraqi television is the first female POW since the Clinton administration's military leaders repealed a rule barring servicewomen from positions with a high risk of encountering enemy fire or capture.

[farmfriend]

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 ?

How big is the man and how big is the woman? Your question is irrelevant. Have standards been lowered for a political agenda? Most certainly yes. Should they have been? No? Make the requirements equal.

Oh, I forgot. I'm wrong.

[farmfriend]

There isn't " gender equality ", biologically.

I never said there was. I just said it was wrong to make men pay the price if we don't make women pay the price as well.

[farmfriend]

And, just for the record, I have been a suffregist

And I have been a masculinist. I am an advocate for mens rights. Not a feminist.

[nopardons]

WHY ? Why should women have to " pay the price " ? Because it would be " fair " ; not right, mind you, just " fair " ?

[nopardons]

You're a weenie. That's the long and the short of it.

[farmfriend]

what the heck are you talking about?

You called me a feminist. I'm explaining that I am not a feminist, I am a masculinist.

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

I have delt with the questions you have posted. You have not delt with mine. Why is it OK to have men pay the ulitmate price for the liberty of this country but not women?

[bonesmccoy]

Don't pander.

Just answer the one question I posed:

How does putting American women in forward positions help us end the regime of Saddam Hussein faster?

[farmfriend]

WHY ? Why should women have to " pay the price " ? Because it would be " fair " ; not right, mind you, just " fair " ?

Ah, now we are back to my original point. What is "fair" is "right".

You're a weenie.

Name calling will not win your argument.

[farmfriend]

How does putting American women in forward positions help us end the regime of Saddam Hussein faster?

You have not posed that question to me as of yet. Now that you have, I will answer. It doesn't but it doesn't make it slower either. That makes it an imiterial question.

Now for my question. How does killing only the men help the men?

[bonesmccoy]

War does not kill only men... it kills nations.

Wars are not between individuals. Wars are between nations.

I would prefer a nation where NATIONAL policy is NOT guided by socialist theory.

Thanks for the intellectual pursuit... now back to reality...

Mr. President- Order American women out of the forward posts.

Warfare is not the place for liberal socialist tinkering with sociology.

[wardaddy]

I'll second that. Has he used his equivocation of racial discrimination and sexual discrimination yet.

These folks think anyone willing to go fight should have that "right" whether they are as qualified or not and don't even consider the societal issues.

War is about killing and winning. Fairness is best left in the classroom.

[wardaddy]

How many women firefighters died out of nearly 300 on 9-11?

[farmfriend]

You still don't get it. You are so stuck in being anti-feminist that you will not even see a pro-man point of view. That is sad.

[wardaddy]

Mega Bump. This forum is overrun with PC idiots and nutless men on this issue.

[bonesmccoy]

MOABump.

[wardaddy]

We don't want to be pro-man homeo. I can't speak for the rest of my ilk on this forum but I'm pro-woman and pro-traditional society and pro-best military possible and in that vein, I see women NOT in combat or the academies or on ships etc. as dovetailing nicely.

[bonesmccoy]

No, I more than get it.

While you are discussing your silly "pro-man" ideology, we've got people dying on the front line because of the social hypothesis of the liberal left.

There's no question what is occuring here.

You're espousing socialist rhetoric and choose not to address the fact that you are.

LOL

[nopardons]

Oh yes, he's been driveling about race & sex all night. :-(

War IS about killing and winning...that's it ! It is NOT some petrie dish, within which social engineering is something to play at.

[farmfriend]

How many women firefighters died out of nearly 300 on 9-11?

Your point?

These folks think anyone willing to go fight should have that "right" whether they are as qualified or not and don't even consider the societal issues.

No I don't. I believe that anyone who is qualified (and I don't mean with lower standards) should have the right to fight. And I do consider the societal issues. That has been my point all along. We treat our men like second class citizens and no one screams about that. Except me. And I am called all kinds of name for it. It won't change the facts.

[wardaddy]

I think either one or none is the correct answer on the firefighters. Proof in the pudding so to speak to one of your earlier opinings.

The problem is that they indeed do lower the standards for women starting at West Point to VMI and all the way to their duties in Iraq...and that is only one facet of the argument against women in the military outside of support duties.

There are a myriad of other sound reasons against it.