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

WND ^

[narses]

...

Riggs said one woman who spoke at yesterday's press conference, Charmaine Yoest, a national advisory board member with the Independent Women's Forum, relayed a recent example involving DACOWITS that illustrated the need for less military feminization.

"On Sept. 10 – the day before those awful terrorist attacks – DACOWITS was discussing lactation and the need for breast-feeding policies within the Army," Riggs said. "This, the day before so many people died" in New York City and at the Pentagon.

"This is no longer a power game where ambitious women can try to advance their careers," Rios said during her speech, "this is a matter of life and death. Any claim that women are equal to men in combat settings is utterly irrational."

Rios cited a recent Royal British Army study that found stark differences between men and women under combat conditions. In one phase of the study, men failed 20 percent of the time to carry 90 pounds of artillery shells over certain distances, she said, adding that women failed "90 percent of the time."

"In a mission simulating wartime conditions, male and female soldiers were asked to carry 60 pounds of equipment while marching 12.5 miles, completing the exercise with target practice. Seventeen percent of the men failed, [as did] 48 percent of the women," she said.

...

[Happygal]

Did someone mention Maggie Thatcher?

War daddy, can we not do this of a Sunday? *L*

[nopardons]

Spot on ! : -)

[nopardons]

I know ... just a " male thingy ". LOL

[farmfriend]

Besides, I do not argue for women in combat. That is always the erronious assumption. I argue for men not women.

[nopardons]

Okay, let's make sure that NO MAN is ever sent into combat, from America. Now what ?

Better go make yourself a burka and convert, dear.

[farmfriend]

Twisting my words is not besting me. Claiming I have ingnored stated facts is baloney, I answered everthing you posted to me until you started calling me names. After that, what was the point. Just because you don't agree with my arguments does not mean that I haven't refuted the other side. You are making a lot of claims but not backing them up with many facts.

You have not bested me at every turn. You just think you have. That is not the same.

[wardaddy]

I know...I'm sorry.....I was aware of my lack of sensitivity as I typed.

Don't wish to piss on yer boots.

[Happygal]

Farmfriend..your tail is ------> thataway..it seems like you are chasing it on this arguement on this forum.

[farmfriend]

There you go twisting things again. Just proves my point about not engaging you in debate.

[Lorianne]

Code breakers were NOT in the military, during WW II.

You are flat out wrong. Do some research.

[farmfriend]

it seems like you are chasing it on this arguement on this forum.

No, I'm not chasing my tail. It just seems that way to people who think I am arguing for one thing but I'm not. They get lost in the whole women in combat thing and miss my larger points. They would rather dismiss me because they don't believe that women should be in combat.

[Happygal]

But farmfriend...you have sent private messages to people in support of their arguments when they have absolutely NO facts and spurious argument against them. Sweetheart, the only foot you had to stand on, in this particular argument, has been shot out from under you.

I don't mean to rub your nose in the dirt.

But there is a LOT more to be gained from walking away with dignity, than scrambling in the dust..if you know what I mean. :-)

[Lorianne]

The military from bottom to top does not exist to provide women a "proving ground" I agree and I've never argued for women in the military from that standpoint. Nor is it a "proving ground" for men. If women are in the military it should be because our military can use their talents. Ditto for men.

[nopardons]

ROTFLMSO !

Well, there ya go again. You know, there's none so blind, as those who will not see, dear and YOU fit that bill. You haven't stated a fact, haven't refuted those who disagree with you, and I know why; you can't. It's far easier to just ignore it all and talk about your cup size, call names, and TWIST everyone else's words. LOL

[nopardons]

ROTFLMSO !

Whinge, whine, Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa .......

[farmfriend]

you have sent private messages to people in support of their arguments when they have absolutely NO facts and spurious argument against them.

When? You reading private mail now?

you have sent private messages to people in support of their arguments when they have absolutely NO facts and spurious argument against them.

Which was what I was trying to do by not answering nopardons in the first place but I rebuked for that too.

[nopardons]

You do some research ! They were part of the OSS here and England's counterpart. That's NOT the same thing, as the topic of this thread, nor what any of the rest of us are talking about.

[Lorianne]

You are a waste of time.

You seem to be expecting me to defend points I never made and opinions I don't hold. In short, you're argueing with yourself.

[farmfriend]

I stated all my facts on the previous thread. I haven't seen you siting any sorces so don't claim that you are siting facts. You want facts? I give them to you but it won't do any good.

[nopardons]

ME ?

Projection is a strange mental illness; however, with time and good help, it CAN be somewhat cured, dear. The same holds true for masochism; which you also seem to suffer from.