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 ...
" The use of camels in the military " ? Now WHO is INVENTING things / putting words in other's mouths ? You, your Y-O-U ! I didn't bring camels into this thread; not at any point in time, you mendacious , beffuddled, pathetic excuse for a person.
Okay, write to your Congress Critters and ask THEM to remove the registration for males. Go on your own personal jihad. It's silly, but go for it. There are far more important things to worry about ; but, you have your own little crusade going ... one which the majority of Americans aren't interested in. It's specious .
Rather than leave this nation unprotected, let's do away with women's suffrage. You are so appalled by women's right to vote, without their registering, let's just take away their right vote. You'd get far more enthusiastsic responses, should you crusade for that, dear. :-)
It talks about an opinion poll. That refutes nothing. I don't believe you read the article.
You are so appalled by women's right to vote, without their registering, let's just take away their right vote.
You don't pay much attention to what I post do you? I never said anything about the women right to vote. You are once again putting words in my mouth and twisting what I say. You can't twist what I say to fit your idea of what I'm saying and have it be reality. You hear what you want to hear and ignor the rest. Sad. Try backing up your arguments with some real facts. You haven't done that yet. I don't believe you can. That is why you continue to attack me rather than prove you point with some real numbers or studies.
As to voting, YOU posted a snip, from the kook author, linking voting rights and registering, at 18, for military service. I can read and understand the printed word. If commenting on same, is " twisting ", then you are incapable of reasoned thought and logic, dear.
I've repeatedly stated FACTS , which you keep saying are " unsourced ", stated why women don't belong in the military, which you ignore, but then, I can't expect someone, such as you, to recognized such a fact, but perhaps you'll come out of the fog ... someday. What is it that you find so compelling about your emotion driven, unsupportabale drivel, that drives you perillously close to hysteria ? Oh poor men, poor, poor POOR men, who are so " miss used " ( sic )and put upon, that they need some great equalizer...such as having to have females register for military service at 18 too ?
I didn't say a word about OSS or CIA. You invented that and then claimed I was referring the them. I wasn't. I was refuting your incorrect claim that there were no enlisted personell in WWII who were code breakers. There were, you are just plain wrong. (For the record, I never limited the discussion to WWII either, you just arbitrarily narrowed the discussion of today's military to WWII, and then further narrowed it to OSS and CIA, claiming that was what I was referring to. In short, you go off on your own tangent and then claim that is what others have said. another thing that had nothing to do with my comments).
There WERE enlisted code breakers in WWII. You're just wrong.
It isn't MY fault that YOU don't know any history, don't understand my posts, and claiming that I am " inventing " things, when all I've been doing, throughout this entire thread, is posting historical facts.
Hardly, you are just posting your own innacuracies about history. Furthermore we weren't even talking about WWII, that was just an aside that you brought in out of the blue which happened to include an inaccurate statement. I merely corrected you on that one point.
" The use of camels in the military " ? Now WHO is INVENTING things / putting words in other's mouths ? You, your Y-O-U ! I didn't bring camels into this thread; not at any point in time, you mendacious , beffuddled, pathetic excuse for a person.
I'm just playing by YOUR rules and putting words into your mouth. Nice huh? I'll continue it too until you stop putting words in my mouth. If you want to say what I said, you can quote me directly or not at all. Otherwise, I'll play by your rules. Got it?
By the way, how many times did you say you beat your kids this week? Was it 12 or 15?
"A recent Pentagon-sanctioned survey of Army and Marine Corps personnel found that only 35 percent believe what their service leaders are telling them and only 44 percent thought their leaders will make tough, unpopular decisions."
How does this refute anything I have said. You make a lot of statements and claim they are facts but I have yet to see you post any facts, sourced or unsourced. Until you do, your posts are worthless.
Note, I'm not in favor of women being drafted on the basis of "equality" or diversity. I'm simply pointing out that tactically, women will be needed simply because they are already doing many military jobs in civilian life. For example, I have done work for the military as a employee of a civilian firm. The military needs people to do jobs whether they are woman or not women. That is beside the point. There are not enough people period, let alone only male people, to fill those positions within the military(enlistment has fallen short goals every year for the past 12 years under the volunteer military). The shortfall would be even greater without women voluteers. In addition many women work in civilian positions which were formerly filled by military personell.
I never said "same." I said that everyone HAS to meet standards--and it's for their own good. They must be able to defend themselves and others. They are regularly re-tested.
As to women who are MD's, RN's, computer geeks, etc.--FINE.
Women should not be in the front lines, nor ANYPLACE where there is a likelihood that they will be engaged in combat.
That does not exculpt them from combat-readiness training; it only means that it is flat out unnatural to have women in combat. Period. Nuff said.
IMO no soldier who is not combat capable shoud be on the front lines or whre there is a likelihood that they will be in combat. As it happens that includes the vast majority of women. However, the military shouldn't and doesn't place anyone in combat who would not be effective or who would jeapardize other combat personell. This common sense, not really a gender thing, except incidently. It's tactical not political.
There are plenty of men who are not sent to the front lines simply because they are more useful to the military elsewhere.
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.