Skip to comments.
"Any claim that women are equal to men in combat settings is utterly irrational."
WND ^
Posted on 03/29/2003 8:07:11 PM PST by 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.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: catholiclist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220 ... 261-279 next last
To: wardaddy
Did someone mention Maggie Thatcher?
War daddy, can we not do this of a Sunday? *L*
181
posted on
03/29/2003 11:50:47 PM PST
by
Happygal
(I'm sure there is a biblical passage to support my view)
To: Happygal
Spot on ! : -)
To: wardaddy
I know ... just a " male thingy ". LOL
To: Happygal
Besides, I do not argue for women in combat. That is always the erronious assumption. I argue for men not women.
184
posted on
03/29/2003 11:52:02 PM PST
by
farmfriend
( Isaiah 55:10,11)
To: farmfriend
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.
To: nopardons
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.
186
posted on
03/29/2003 11:56:18 PM PST
by
farmfriend
( Isaiah 55:10,11)
To: Happygal
I know...I'm sorry.....I was aware of my lack of sensitivity as I typed.
Don't wish to piss on yer boots.
187
posted on
03/29/2003 11:56:21 PM PST
by
wardaddy
(G-d speed our fighters!)
To: farmfriend
Farmfriend..your tail is ------> thataway..it seems like you are chasing it on this arguement on this forum.
188
posted on
03/29/2003 11:56:34 PM PST
by
Happygal
(I'm sure there is a biblical passage to support my view)
To: nopardons
There you go twisting things again. Just proves my point about not engaging you in debate.
189
posted on
03/29/2003 11:58:05 PM PST
by
farmfriend
( Isaiah 55:10,11)
To: nopardons
Code breakers were NOT in the military, during WW II. You are flat out wrong. Do some research.
To: Happygal
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.
191
posted on
03/30/2003 12:03:28 AM PST
by
farmfriend
( Isaiah 55:10,11)
To: farmfriend
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. :-)
192
posted on
03/30/2003 12:03:58 AM PST
by
Happygal
(I'm sure there is a biblical passage to support my view)
To: wardaddy
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.
To: farmfriend
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
To: farmfriend
ROTFLMSO !
Whinge, whine, Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa .......
To: Happygal
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.
196
posted on
03/30/2003 12:10:41 AM PST
by
farmfriend
( Isaiah 55:10,11)
To: Lorianne
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.
To: nopardons
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.
To: nopardons
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.
199
posted on
03/30/2003 12:13:09 AM PST
by
farmfriend
( Isaiah 55:10,11)
To: Lorianne
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.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220 ... 261-279 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson