Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 01/24/2013 5:03:42 AM PST by John Leland 1789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: John Leland 1789

“There are many purposes behind the feminists’ [left’s] efforts to restructure the military, but you can be sure that greater national security is not one of them.” ~ David Horowitz, National Review, October 5, 1992

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2959508/posts


2 posted on 01/24/2013 5:15:56 AM PST by areukiddingme1 (areukiddingme1 is a synonym for a Retired U.S. Navy Chief Petty Officer and tired of liberal BS.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: John Leland 1789

3 posted on 01/24/2013 5:20:37 AM PST by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: John Leland 1789

Not to mention that women have periods. So they’re in the heat of the battle and start bleeding and having severe cramps. “Oh, excuse me, boys, while I go and powder my nose.”


4 posted on 01/24/2013 5:21:53 AM PST by District13 (Obama scares me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: John Leland 1789

No civilized country sends their women into combat.

(Well, I mean, unless there’s a big mud puddle involved...!)


5 posted on 01/24/2013 5:24:16 AM PST by djf (Conservative values help the poor. Liberal values help them STAY poor!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: John Leland 1789

The purpose of the military is to win battles, kill more of the enemy than they kill of us and ultimately defeat the enemy through attrition of combatants/equipment or through shear will power!

It is NOT about equality! If it is about equality, then why do only OFFICERS get to fly jets? How is that equal to the enlisted men?

There is nothing “equal” about combat! The each side will attack at the weakest point and will scrutinize any perceived flinch and will use EVERY SINGLE ASPECT against the other to be victorious! Our enemy doesn’t “play fair” or only shoot at the armed or only attack the well defended, which means we must have better trained, more equipped and FULLY FUNCTIONAL soldiers at the front lines, otherwise, the rear-lines will see MUCH MORE combat than at any other time in American history!

This is a failure of leadership by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They are too busy trying to curry favor with the President than to stand and explain the purpose of the military is about winning wars with the least amount of American casualties! This decision will lead to more deaths of more Americans and the Joint Chiefs of Staff will NEVER admit that it was due to these asinine “equality” changes!

I pray for America’s future!


6 posted on 01/24/2013 5:36:39 AM PST by ExTxMarine (PRAYER: It's the only HOPE for real CHANGE in America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: John Leland 1789

Considering that we try not to leave people behind, the weaker will inhibit the stronger from accomplishing the mission.

When the female’s endurance limit is reached, the troops will have to help them forward.

Makes the situation more dangerous and disadvantageous for the forward troops overall.

Exactly the type of thing the commie in chief appreciates.

And, loosely along these lines, I was wondering, when the O’s danced w/military folks at the inaugural ball, did they select gay service members?


7 posted on 01/24/2013 5:39:10 AM PST by fruser1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: John Leland 1789

The ability to draft our daughters and put them on the front lines to die in foreign wars and pointless peacekeeping missions along with our sons does not strike me as progress.
When I first heard the serious proposals of women in combat in the 1990s, I thought it was a liberal way to make people want to oppose war - because you don’t want 19 year old pixies getting blown up.


8 posted on 01/24/2013 5:46:56 AM PST by tbw2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: John Leland 1789
I cannot attest to the efficacy of women in combat roles. Neither do I deny they may have a role to play. The record, however, is painfully clear. During Dessert Shield and subsequently, Desert Storm female service members, when suddenly faced with wartime deployment, rushed into pregnancies in an effort to avoid service. Their ranks were reduced to the extent less that 35% remained fit for duty for Gulf War 1. Would the same hold true today?
11 posted on 01/24/2013 5:58:30 AM PST by PowderMonkey (WILL WORK FOR AMMO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: John Leland 1789

The military isn’t ‘the military’ anymore.

To the government, it’s just another government job. It’s like a larger version of the post office, just with higher operating costs.

To the American people, war is a sporting event. Hopefully we win, but if not, it was probably nothing big. The ref was blind, bad calls by the coach, maybe need to shake up the roster a bit, but hey, better luck next war!

To the generals, war is what you wage over your budget and your political fiefdom. Victory is clawing your way up from Assistant Vice Deputy Post Commander to Vice Deputy Post Commander. Defeat is being passed over for promotion.

In short, whatever you remember (or imagine) about the military is gone, and what’s left is about to shrink. Of course, it won’t be the bureaucracy that shrinks. They’ll cut troops and tanks before they lay a hand on a desk. That’s just where we are now as a nation.


12 posted on 01/24/2013 6:07:48 AM PST by Steel Wolf ("Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master." - Gaius Sallustius Crispus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: John Leland 1789

Then it is NOT an OPTION, for some to “choose”.
They will go where they are ASSIGNED!

Men can’t “decline” front line service.

Then neither can women.

IDIOTS!


13 posted on 01/24/2013 6:10:03 AM PST by G Larry (Which of Obama's policies do you think I'd support if he were white?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: John Leland 1789

What do feminists think is going to happen to female soldiers captured by islamic terrorists? Geneva Convention treatment? Yeah!


15 posted on 01/24/2013 6:32:09 AM PST by golf lover (goingf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: John Leland 1789

Great letter.


18 posted on 01/24/2013 6:54:56 AM PST by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: John Leland 1789

Somehow, I can’t believe that the US Public could stand to see women storming the beaches at Omaha and Iwo Jima, while watching them being cut down by enemy fire.

If they do, I believe the Feminazis who demand this should be press ganged into the service to lead the charge.


22 posted on 01/24/2013 9:12:59 AM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Click my name! See new paintings!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: John Leland 1789

If this is about “equality”, then when are we going to get rid of the WIC program? What about maternity leave? Alimony?


23 posted on 01/24/2013 9:25:20 AM PST by meyer (When people fear the government, you have Tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: All

next up- free gubmint abortions on base..


24 posted on 01/24/2013 9:31:11 AM PST by newnhdad (Our new motto: USA, it was fun while it lasted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson