"Any claim that women are equal to men in combat settings is utterly irrational."

WND ^

[farmfriend]

I for one, am NOT, interested in infantile debating.

Where have I done any infantile debating? nopardons claimed that she had not called me names. I gave several of her quotes to show that what I said was true. If you do not wish posts from me, so be it. I can deal with that. I don't know what I have posted that you object so strenuously to or why you would think that I was ingaging in infantile debate. If you don't agree with my stance, that is fine. I can handle disagreement. If you go back to the thread I linked, you will see that it was not me causing the problem.

[jackbob]

.. If we don't enforce the rules, then we shouldn't expect everyone to follow them and we have no right to expect discipline and order in the military....

You are absolutely correct about the military. What you say I'm sure is equally correct about the Iraq war thus far. I'm sure that almost all our soldiers are following most all of the rules over there right now. But Iraq is not as yet (and I hope it doesn't become) a prolonged war. But should Iraq turn deadly (I mean where the majority of the infantry men have experienced several losses of life in their own platoons as a direct result of infantry combat, with anticipation of more losses), those infantry men will not be the same people anymore. What seemed important under the civil conditions that the war is being fought now, will no longer have such importance. Only self survival and the mission will carry any weight. The less rules the better.

Add women to that kind of environment, and you add a type of competition that will split the brotherhood, cause resentment and probable favoritism. Trust between soldiers will decline, and in fighting will increase. That is the power sex has over men. To a soldier about to die tomorrow, your petty rule against sex is not going to stop him with a willing partner. The combat effectiveness of such a unit will decline very quickly, as distrust and and suspected favoritism begins to take shape. There does not even have to be any actual sex or favoritism, just the suspicion of it can be enough to destroy the unit morale and effectivness.

[WorkingClassFilth]

I've met you before.

You are the guy that periodically haunts FR with idiot arguments and ignores the substantive bulk of each poster's text. Rather than respond to the points a poster makes, you maek hit and run selective posts.

Yep. You're the one.

So, again, friend, how do you tie your Old Testament values to the 21st century feminist tripe you currently peddle?

[annyokie]

Now we know that's not going to happen. Girls as nurses is okay with me, but at arms? NOt!

[Lorianne]

Lorianne..you say 99% of women aren't qualifed for combat positions. But, how do you find the 1%? Through tax payers money, and the lives of men being lost, in finding out if they are 'capable'?

No. We don't have to "find" them. We have a volunteer military. We do recruit people but we turn people away for a number of reasons. The military doesn't take everyone who applies. It cost money to train people. The military only invests in people who are likely good candidates. Even then the attrition rate in the first year is fairly high (25% I think). They are constantly trying to reduce that rate by better screening at recruitment.

The military is not obligated to sign up people who are of no obvious use to the military. They turn people away all the time and they kick people out all the time.

We don't need to go find women, if they volunteer we evaluate them the same as we would a male volunteer. We look at their talents and how they can be used. There are men who are not exactly Rambo types but who have highly useful skills, say in computers or in languages, who we want in the military because we need brain power as much as we need muscle.

[Happygal]

Happygal said:You DON'T enter into 'games'

Farmfriend said:``That is not what I said. Don't twist my words. I said I won't play her game

Therefore, implying...you DO play games with people. Not at all interested in coversing with you any more, or considering a syllable of what you say.

[wardaddy]

Oh bullcrap....they have lowered standards for women across the boards from the academies all the way up thru the military because it was forced on them by PC what if folks like you. Most of the REMF perfumed princes play along to further their careers.

They don't need women in the academies or frontlines or on ships. They are there as a social experiment that is pure damaging indulgence.

Again.

As Travis McGee said last week, let this war turn into a series of 2 or 3 Blackhawk Down scenarios coming down the pike weekly for a while in an immediate war for survival and we'll see how this expereiment holds.

"Any nation that will send it's mothers and daughters to die in combat while fat and lazy men in college lie around smoking dope and watching MTV....doesn't deserve to survive.

[farmfriend]

There is hardly a FReeper on this forum less worthy of DU than nopardons.

If you see the quotes I have from her in #131 you will understand why I won't deal with her. I do know military combat vets on this forum who do agree with me. I wouldn't give their names though. If they want their views known, they will come and say so.

FReeperette who's got your number homeo?

I'm not running from her. And I'm not a homeo. I have no problem engaging in debate with most freepers. I realize that my views on this issue will get me flamed. So be it.

[wardaddy]

Quit whining...be a MAN!....lol

[farmfriend]

So, again, friend, how do you tie your Old Testament values to the 21st century feminist tripe you currently peddle?

I don't. I've said that once. And unless your last post was sarcastic, you don't know me at all.

[Happygal]

Jesus, if I was a woman in a combat situation I'd hate a whiny assed farmfriend watching my butt! *L*

[farmfriend]

Thanks for the laugh. I needed one. Hard to be a man in a G cup.

[nopardons]

An architect ? You aren't needed in any capacity, in any of the armed services. Neither can you write English well; you used " me", instead of the correct " I "; yet you claim that I can't comprehend the written word. Dear, I can; however, you forget what you post, claim I twist words, and can't debate. You are illogical to boot.

You have totally ignored the facts , that I a=nd many others have posted. Instead, you throw temper tantrums.

Let's go back to sqaure one. You demand that women be allowed into the military ( if they are " able " ), but ignore what social engineering has done and continues to do to it. WHY ? Is it because it doesn't matter to you, you don't understand what what you porpose really entails, and that you have absolutely NO comprehension , whatsoever, about this topic ? I suspect so.

Add to the above, women were used to help with decoding, but they weren't anywhere near enemy lines, unless you care to include the fact that the Germans were shelling England, at the time. Women HAVE been involved in espionage, for centuries, however, that usually took place in restuarants, hotel rooms, and beds. The " resistance fighters, in France and Italy, could, I suppose be said to have been " on the front lines ", as could spotters; however, you aren't really talking about those women.

You are supporting a few gaggle of females, who have the same brute strength, that men have. Still and all, those females aren't as good as the vast majority of men are. Scraping the bottom of the barrel, just for social experimentation, is patently ridiculous.

Let's get back to one of my original postulates. Some colleges have unixes bathrooms. Girls do NOT like using them. Even IF a female/s were as physically capable ( hehehe, hahahaha ) as male military are, men go to the bathroom together. Stick a woman into the mix, in the desert, with her period, and it's a disaster for EVERYONE of them.

Young men, no matter HOW " civilized ", think about having sex, every 5 minutes, or so. In a war, it isn't far from their minds; their brains are just hardwired that way. Men, in battle, since at least WW I, have taken pinup pictures with them, painted them on planes. In today's PC cu;lture, that is considered to be " sexual harassment ".

Men are not only conditioned to be protective of women;but they are also inherently so; another primative holdover, brain hardwiring ! That is devisive and dangerous, when anyone/ group is captured by the " other side."

People don't change, even though technology does. Learn history, sociology, biology,psychology, and logic. You need more help, than can be gained from reading an on line forum. ; ^ )

[wardaddy]

I have seen no real combat vet that I know on this forum say he wants women in combat.....and there are plenty who have opined on the couple of dozen threads we've had on this topic the past 11 days.

Homeo is slang for "Homes+Romeo"....nothing queer there.

Nopardons gives as good as she gets...better actually and she is incredibly well informed. If she scares you then don't aggravate her. That's the nature of this forum when a heated topic is on the barbie.

This war is apt to settle this nonsense once and for all to some degree. I hope some common sense prevails.

[nopardons]

Pompous, ill educated screamers, who can't debate. BTW, I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count, as to just WHO hit the abuse button and had this thread moved to the smokey backroom, because she couldn't take our reasoned posts. LOL

Pathetic ; to say the least !

[nopardons]

Your case is shot full of holes.

Everyone, reading these posts, knows that facts aren't name calling; however, B....itch is. LOL

You just can't " take it ", dear; get outta the kitchen. :-)

[nopardons]

BRAVA !

[farmfriend]

Whiny assed, no. Bad a$$ B*tch, yes.

Me with the Klamath bucket.

Sorry Happygal, I'll leave you alone. From one Irish gal to another, to bad you let my one arrant view jade you against me.

[nopardons]

You are repeating feminazi propaganda and are incapable of a reasoned debate. Neither is your reading comprehension up to snuff, dear. Frankly, you aren't even much of a Conservative.