You've Heard of Jessica Lynch, Have You Heard of Patrick Miller?

Did you really believe for one second that he was serious that all medals to all males would be discontinued until females caught up with the total number of medals given to men in all prior wars?

Some people exaggerate all the time, they get carried away. He never said it was a joke.

I see that for reasons known only to him, #3fan has managed to keeep his private little flame war going.

You're wasting your time. He's a Philadelphia lawyer. At first, I thought I'd give him the benefit of the doubt, and suggested he might be illiterate, rather than dishonest. But thanks anyway, for trying to inject some common sense into the proceedings.

You don't support women in the infantry. But you support them in roles that puts them in contact with an enemy. And, of course, the odds are they will come into contact with the enemy, as just such a case, and other cases in the first attack on Iraq.

If the safety of women, and therefore the respect we are hardwired to give them, are a consideration then neither option is acceptable. Women have served in military clerical and support capacities in our history because of this firmware feature of men.

If you are against one you are against the other.

Very few instances in the history of other times and civilizations have women been put in routine danger. It's been a cross-cultural custom in all history among all nations. This is one of the benchmarks of a conservative.

Probably not on a small sample size in the current layout. But if you get rid of women in the military, then able-bodied men who could be in the infantry would have to be removed from the infantry to do the jobs formerly done by women.

Nobody's gitting rid of women in the military, of course. Just letting them serve only in their historical capacity.

The law of diminishing returns would kick in. We would have to accept lesser-qualified men comapared to men men already in since there would have to be much more men. They wouldn't be as dedicated as the all-volunteer force we have, or there may have to be a draft and I think every higher-up I've heard in the military believes an all-volunteer force is better than a drafted force, and if it's better, then more lives are saved in the long run. So because of one incident, you would want to get rid of a hundred thousand soldiers and then more money would have to be spent in recruitment and any more money spent on recruitment means less money for the men on the front lines. The more volunteers we have, the better, I think. But again, this is a subject you need to talk to others about because I don't wish to discuss it and it's not something I'm going to argue about for 500 posts. My only posts on the military here have been on threads that attack our soldiers. I've defended our soldiers here when attacked for taking Iraqi wives, for seeing prostitutes in Australia, and this kind of bashing and nitpicking against Lynch. I let the veterans worry about the other stuff.

Most of this paragraph spins off the first part above, which was not right, so the extrapolation isn't an issue. Women do well in the military at their usual jobs, releasing the men to do well at their usual jobs.

Thank you defending our troops in armed service. But when you say "soldier" you mean men and women. Advocating women in dangerous military jobs and tolerating it are about two millimetres apart with respect to it being done.

Nobody here is really about "bashing" Miss Lynch. The media feeding over her drama, and the way it is presented, is obviously designed to futher a favorite liberal cause, not suprising since the media is liberal. She is being used, and they have enough respect for the feminine half of the race to object. Kind of like objecting to pornography.

The "bashers" here are just more sensitive to destrutive changes in customs that have evolved over millennia for a reason. Some of their fear spills over on on Miss Lynch. Naturally, that's one of the downsides to allowing oneself to be used as canvas by others.

Please note that the only way a custom is kept alive is because the reason for it keeps making itself known when the custom is mangled sufficiently.

We are beginning to mangle it, and my concern is with that old reason manifesting again, because a custom is always developed to prevent a bad and dangerous thing from happening.

You don't seem to be concerned with that. It doesn't matter that you advocate it or tolerate it. The result is the same.

He's a Philadelphia lawyer.

Philadelphia lawyer?

Excellence In Posting BUMP

You don't support women in the infantry. But you support them in roles that puts them in contact with an enemy.

Actually, this is the first time it's happened in 12 years, isn't it?

And, of course, the odds are they will come into contact with the enemy, as just such a case, and other cases in the first attack on Iraq.

But are those 1 in 12 years odds worth getting rid of 100,000 female soldiers which would then cause a problem for recruitment?

If the safety of women, and therefore the respect we are hardwired to give them, are a consideration then neither option is acceptable. Women have served in military clerical and support capacities in our history because of this firmware feature of men.

Adult females can make informed choices.

If you are against one you are against the other.

Nope, button-pushing jobs can be done as well by women. Men definitely have an advantage in hand-to-hand combat.

Very few instances in the history of other times and civilizations have women been put in routine danger. It's been a cross-cultural custom in all history among all nations. This is one of the benchmarks of a conservative.

I think choice, self-responsibility, and protection of the innocent are benchmarks of conservatism. These are adult women making these choices.

Nobody's gitting rid of women in the military, of course. Just letting them serve only in their historical capacity.

Which would cause a human resource supply problem, then a recruitment problem, then a financial problem, then a morale problem, then an excessive casualty problem.

Most of this paragraph spins off the first part above, which was not right, so the extrapolation isn't an issue. Women do well in the military at their usual jobs, releasing the men to do well at their usual jobs.

Which means that the more support jobs there are for women to fill, the better men can be chosen to fill the infantry-style positions because of greater choice which would mean less casualties in the long run despite the occasional 507th-type incident.

Thank you defending our troops in armed service. But when you say "soldier" you mean men and women.

Yes of course I mean women also, that was my point when I said you want to get rid of 100,000 soldiers. You want to get rid of thousands of these female soldiers doing the types of jobs that Lynch was doing. These jobs would have to be filled by men who are currently better served to do the physically demanding jobs.

Advocating women in dangerous military jobs and tolerating it are about two millimetres apart with respect to it being done.

You do believe in the law of diminishing returns, don't you? The less choice you have when your filling something that takes a high number of units of a human resource, the less the return will be per unit. The less return you get, the more casualties you get.

Nobody here is really about "bashing" Miss Lynch.

Yes they are, they've called her a whore, white trash, etc. They are not consistent. They put her down for writing a book when many who have served have written books. They nitpick every little detail about her life.

The media feeding over her drama, and the way it is presented, is obviously designed to futher a favorite liberal cause, not suprising since the media is liberal.

No, she was rescued in a dramatic rescue. We know the ones that are singled out due to circumstance. We know O'Grady, Anderson, Zaun, because they were in unique circumstances and were saved. Same with Lynch. This isn't a liberal conspiracy, the liberals are the ones that are trying to diminish the rescue.

She is being used, and they have enough respect for the feminine half of the race to object. Kind of like objecting to pornography.

The more intolerant segment of the right is using Lynch as a poster-child for everything they see wrong with America, it's been dispicable. I get a lot of mail supporting me on these threads so there is a big segment of the right that are not attacking Lynch though. I don't see the left using her for their causes to a great degree. To the contrary, the left has done everything they can to diminish the rescue.

The "bashers" here are just more sensitive to destrutive changes in customs that have evolved over millennia for a reason. Some of their fear spills over on on Miss Lynch. Naturally, that's one of the downsides to allowing oneself to be used as canvas by others.

More nitpicking. What's she supposed to do, she's in rehab, she doesn't have the time or energy to get in these squabbles and she shouldn't get in these squabbles. The people bashing her are bashing her because they are the more hateful, jealous, and insecure among us. They are always angry and they like to pick someone to project their anger onto. They have to have their two minutes of hate per day. They call her a whore and white trash. There's no way she should respond to these types of people because these types of people will never be satisfied.

Please note that the only way a custom is kept alive is because the reason for it keeps making itself known when the custom is mangled sufficiently.

I don't think an incident every twelve years is too bad. I think that by getting rid of female soldiers, the causulaty rate among the infantry would be a lot higher due to the law of diminishing returns, there would be less choice up front, and less choice means less quality of men.

We are beginning to mangle it, and my concern is with that old reason manifesting again, because a custom is always developed to prevent a bad and dangerous thing from happening.

Nah, our culture had a custom of monarchy before America. I'm glad we chucked that custom in favor of Republicanism. Some customs are kept because they benefit an elite few. I think contrary to what you've been saying, there have always been females attached to our military campaigns, doing the jobs that can be served as well as men. With today's highly mechanized military, there are many more jobs that can be filled with women than before. Now women can do more than just be nurses.

You don't seem to be concerned with that. It doesn't matter that you advocate it or tolerate it. The result is the same.

I have my opinion and my opinion is based upon recruitment and the law of diminishing returns. If an army report came out tomorrow that said that Lynch-type jobs would be filled by men from now on since there's a higher probability of combat action that diminishes the recruitment advantage that comes from filling less physically-demanding jobs with women, then that would be fine with me, if that's what their experts decide. My opinion is based on patterns I observe in everyday life. I know where I worked we got into a situation where we had to hire any Joe Schmoe from the streets because of a labor crunch. Hell, we were taking people as soon as they got out of prison there for a while. I'd hate to have to be in a foxhole with some of those guys we took. The law of diminishing returns.

This is the first time women in close support roles being harmed has happened in 12 years because that is the length of time between insertions. If another gulf action had taken place 3 months after the first one, it would have been the first time it had happened in 3 months.

Since it is not at all "1 in 12 years" of constant conflict your statement about getting rid of 100,000 female soldiers because of the lack of frequency fails. BTW, does that "100,000 female soldiers" include all those in rear support and clerical jobs?

Adult females can certainly make informed choices, but should a blind person be able to make an informed choice to be a beach lifeguard?

Obviously, women "pushing buttons" as well as men can get shot and captured pushing those buttons. Was Miss Lynch pushing buttons in that Jeep? The only reason one would be against putting women into combat as hands-on warriors is to protect their lives. You lose that reason by putting them in jobs that place them in danger from an enemy.

So, your comment about good women "button pushers" is an avoidance of the issue. I'd damn sure shoot anyone pushing a button that means my death or injury in a war situation.

For sure, self-responsibility, and protection of the innocent are benchmarks of conservatism. But, preservation of a nation full of innocents (our children behind the lines) and the responsibility for protecting our nation from those who mean all the people therein harm indicate we should be using those who can do the job best. That is not women. Women have been protected from harm and deferred to in all civilizations for a reason.

Do you not understand, with your focus on "adult women making these choices", that there are many things adults of either sex cannot do by custom, law and biology in the US?

Keeping women in their traditional rear support and clerical jobs would cause "a human resource supply problem, then a recruitment problem, then a financial problem, then a morale problem, then an excessive casualty problem"? It hasn't in the past. We won two world wars and numerous conflicts with that policy.

Yes I suppose that if we use women on the front lines in maintenance and other capacities than direct infantry involvment could release more men to those infantry tasks. So what? Relative few would be released this way, and when those front line positions are challenged by a run-in with enemy combatants, the men therein can fight and have a chance to prevail.

As I said before, we have won two world wars and numerous conflicts not doing that.

I posted, "Advocating women in dangerous military jobs and tolerating it are about two millimetres apart with respect to it being done."

You replied, "You do believe in the law of diminishing returns, don't you? The less choice you have when your filling something that takes a high number of units of a human resource, the less the return will be per unit. The less return you get, the more casualties you get."

The point was that tolerating a thing brings it about as well as actively advocating for it. I don't understand your response.

Yes, people here say uncomplimenting thing about Miss Lynch. As I said, that is the price for being willing to be used as a tool. Tool she is; your saying "no" denies observation. There may be some of the left that decry her being used as an icon, but it is the left that is using her that way.

Nah, our culture had a custom of monarchy before America. I'm glad we chucked that custom in favor of Republicanism. Some customs are kept because they benefit an elite few. I think contrary to what you've been saying, there have always been females attached to our military campaigns, doing the jobs that can be served as well as men. With today's highly mechanized military, there are many more jobs that can be filled with women than before. Now women can do more than just be nurses.

Monarchy is not used in every civilization. Protection and nurture of women is; that makes women the "elite few" and well deserved for they are, among other more spiritual things, the only portal whereby more men and women can get to the Earth.

I ask the same question I have asked before: why search out the rare voluntary strawberry in the watermelon field? Why not just stick with the strawberry field?

This is the first time women in close support roles being harmed has happened in 12 years because that is the length of time between insertions. If another gulf action had taken place 3 months after the first one, it would have been the first time it had happened in 3 months. Since it is not at all "1 in 12 years" of constant conflict your statement about getting rid of 100,000 female soldiers because of the lack of frequency fails. BTW, does that "100,000 female soldiers" include all those in rear support and clerical jobs?

There's been Bosnia and Afghanistan. Once every 12 years isn't bad.

Adult females can certainly make informed choices, but should a blind person be able to make an informed choice to be a beach lifeguard?

But freeing up a better choice of men for the infantry saves lives.

Obviously, women "pushing buttons" as well as men can get shot and captured pushing those buttons. Was Miss Lynch pushing buttons in that Jeep?

I don't know what her job entailed.

The only reason one would be against putting women into combat as hands-on warriors is to protect their lives. You lose that reason by putting them in jobs that place them in danger from an enemy.

We put them in jobs that are most likely to save lives.

So, your comment about good women "button pushers" is an avoidance of the issue. I'd damn sure shoot anyone pushing a button that means my death or injury in a war situation.

As well you should. Having a better military protects us all, including women.

For sure, self-responsibility, and protection of the innocent are benchmarks of conservatism. But, preservation of a nation full of innocents (our children behind the lines) and the responsibility for protecting our nation from those who mean all the people therein harm indicate we should be using those who can do the job best. That is not women.

Women can do the button-pushing jobs as well as men. Having an all-volunteer force protects us all. Freeing up a better choice of men for the front lines protects those men also.

Women have been protected from harm and deferred to in all civilizations for a reason.

There've been many women associated with the military in our culture's history.

Do you not understand, with your focus on "adult women making these choices", that there are many things adults of either sex cannot do by custom, law and biology in the US?

Women can do button-pushing jobs.

Keeping women in their traditional rear support and clerical jobs would cause "a human resource supply problem, then a recruitment problem, then a financial problem, then a morale problem, then an excessive casualty problem"? It hasn't in the past. We won two world wars and numerous conflicts with that policy.

With a higher casualty rate.

Yes I suppose that if we use women on the front lines in maintenance and other capacities than direct infantry involvment could release more men to those infantry tasks. So what?

Due to the law of diminishing returns, freeing up a better choice of men for the infantry saves lives, that's the "so what".

Relative few would be released this way, and when those front line positions are challenged by a run-in with enemy combatants, the men therein can fight and have a chance to prevail.

But it only happens once every 12 years. In that time there may be 10,000 military incidents. A higher quality of soldier in those 10,000 incidents due to women filling the button-pushing jobs saves many more lives over the long haul.

As I said before, we have won two world wars and numerous conflicts not doing that.

With a higher casualty rate.

The point was that tolerating a thing brings it about as well as actively advocating for it. I don't understand your response.

I advocate filling button-pushing jobs with women. It frees up more men for the infantry leading to better choice and therefore less casualties.

Yes, people here say uncomplimenting thing about Miss Lynch. As I said, that is the price for being willing to be used as a tool.

So it's her fault she's being called a whore and white trash by some here?! No way! She's being called names because there are some that are hateful, jealous, and insecure. It's not her fault at all.

Tool she is; your saying "no" denies observation. There may be some of the left that decry her being used as an icon, but it is the left that is using her that way.

The left hasn't been holding her up for anything much, they loathe the military and have been putting down the rescue. Some unsavory elements on the right are the ones that are using her in a dispicable fashion.

Monarchy is not used in every civilization. Protection and nurture of women is; that makes women the "elite few" and well deserved for they are, among other more spiritual things, the only portal whereby more men and women can get to the Earth.

I don't think we're going back to the fifties where women were locked in their houses by their husbands barefoot and pregnant all the time. lol Our culture has had it's times when women were allowed freedom of choices, this is nothing new. Hell, we use to keep female slaves and worked them to the bone. Some reverance.

I ask the same question I have asked before: why search out the rare voluntary strawberry in the watermelon field? Why not just stick with the strawberry field?

What are you talking about?

What are you talking about?

I said, "I ask the same question I have asked before: why search out the rare voluntary strawberry in the watermelon field? Why not just stick with the strawberry field?"

Do you really not get what I'm talking about? Ok, why bring women into the armed forces as combatants or semi-combatants when there are millions of men uniquely suited to such work.

The rest of your post consists of points we've covered before. I don't have time to repeat myself endlessly. Suffice to say that for one who is against putting women in dangerous jobs in the military, you argue mightily for just such a policy.

We'll get into it on other threads when there's more participation.

Do you really not get what I'm talking about? Ok, why bring women into the armed forces as combatants or semi-combatants when there are millions of men uniquely suited to such work.

Because there's only a limited number of men available. If you got rid of all the women, there'd have to be more money spent on recruitment instead of weapons and the quality of men on the front lines would decrease due to the law of diminishing returns. Both of these would increase the casualty rate.

The rest of your post consists of points we've covered before. I don't have time to repeat myself endlessly. Suffice to say that for one who is against putting women in dangerous jobs in the military, you argue mightily for just such a policy.

Lives are saved by having an all-volunteer force. More women have been killed stateside in this war than in the military, so we need the best military possible.

We'll get into it on other threads when there's more participation.

Actually, I don't really care about this subject enough to go 500 posts on it, I was simply answering your posts. Why don't you go to the military threads and start it with the female military freepers there? They know more about it than I do. Tell them they're a drag on the military, see if they agree with you. I know I don't agree with you. :^)

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner...yesterday was quite busy.

"The Pentagon had ample opportunity to correct the media's distortions while she was incommunicado, but chose to let it go for some reason."

Can you say DACOWITS? Lynch's doctor in Germany came out the day after she got there and stated she had not suffered any gunshot or stab wounds, and in fact her injuries were consistent with those usually suffered in auto accidents. The Pentagon came out immediately and overruled the doctor's statement, again saying Lynch had been shot and stabbed. What could this be, other than a blatant attempt to make her story into something it wasn't, for political purposes at the Pentagon. This smells of DACOWITS so badly the stench was overpowering all the way down here in Florida!

"What could she have added, if in fact she was permitted to talk about it?"

She could have put her all-important stamp on the truth, so the American Sheeple, who'd long since quit paying attention to developments in her story, could have known once and for all that they'd been lied to by the Pentagon and the lamestream media. Instead, many are still under the impression that she fought like Xena, when in fact she was unconscious and it was Miller, Riley, and Sloan who did what she was credited with. She could be honest and decent. Maybe the Army's telling her to keep her mouth shut, and if so, the smell of a political agenda is still overpowering. Maybe she's reveling in her 15 minutes of fame, and looking forward to the fortune coming her way. If so, she has no sense of decency.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

"Well, I did know about the Wash. Post's bunk story. I just don't hold Lynch responsible for it."

I never read the Washington Compost, and therefore didn't get the story there. Make no mistake, the lie is the responsibility of the entire media, which spread it, and in many cases, reveled in it, then didn't bother too much with the truth when it came out months later.

I don't blame Lynch for the lie, either. But she could, and should, and hopefully will in her book/movie, acknowledge the lie as a lie, and give the credit for the heroic acts of that night to those who carried them out.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

I apologize for not getting back with you sooner, but I do want to address you last post to me. I also apologize for the length of this post, but there's a lot to answer.

"Well, the news media ran stories about her. Yes, Fox as well as the liberal media. They were some of the most postive stories about the war effort we had in a couple of weeks of "bad news" and "quagmire".

How is this using Lynch to advance a political agenda? Her rescue was news...yes, it was very good news at that. I don't even fault the media for reporting the lie, because that was the official line the Pentagon was putting out at the time. The blame I lay on the media comes after the first element of doubt was introduced. When the doctor in Germany announced that Lynch had not suffered gunshot and knife wounds, the media should have torn into the Pentagon's retraction like they tore into Bob Packwood, Clarence Thomas, Robert Bork, etc. Instead, the Pentagon's (DACOWITS's?) retraction suited the political agenda of the feminazis and the CommieLib press just fine, so they continued to tell tales of Lynch, Warrior Princess.

So, while its obvious that CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, Katie Commie, Diane Sawyer, Susan Estrich, et al, used the Lynch lie to advance their own liberal agenda, I fail to see how anyone on "The Right" used her to benefit any kind of political agenda whatsoever. We on "The Right" just want to see the truth of that night given the same coverage as the lie. We also want to see those like Miller, Sloan and Riley get the same attention and recognition as has Lynch.

"If the caveman contingent on FR wasn't so worried about girl-soldier getting some exaggerated good press, they might have noticed that she and her company, and the other POWs rescued were the first good news the media focused on regarding the war effort, and one that captured the attention of the country because there was a nice clean smiling face they could put up on the banner graphic."

Careful, you're starting to sound like an emotional liberal here. "Caveman?" Oh come on, give me a break! Am I a "caveman" just because I see through the dangerous feminazi propoganda that surrounds the Lynch story, and want to see the truth be given the same attention as the lie? Am I, and dozens of other FReepers "cavemen" because we want the true heroes of that night to get the full credit they deserve and the recognition they earned, instead of having it foisted upon a soldier who was unconscious at the time, just because that helps advance the women in combat agenda of radical feminazis? Give me a break. If I hadn't know you from other threads, and agreed with you much of the time, I'd suspect you were a liberal with that "caveman" crap. Please leave the ad hominem comments out, they don't accomplish anything.

"And the media seemed to want to report it. But it stopped then, with the same short attention span of any other media hype, it died, for the most part. She was not picked up by the left for them to run with, because they are not interested in stories that might make the war effort look good. Nor do I think she would get on board their cause. Feminazis are not exactly behind what she was doing and they don't want her has a hero."

Are we talking about the same Jessica Lynch? 'Cause the one I've been hearing about was reported and hyped practically every time she hiccuped for months! She was front-page news even when she returned home to West Virginia! The entire nation knows she's engaged to her fellow-GI boyfriend! We all know about the soon-to-come Lynch bio and movie! We know she snubbed that Mohammed guy when he visited her hometown! For crying out loud, she is a war hero in America's eyes, because the lamestream media made her one! Granted, each and every servicemember, of all serives, whether they're fighting or not, is a hero in their own light. But Lynch has been made an icon by the media because to do so fit their agenda, and the agenda of DACOWITS. Now, if you apply your theory that the media don't want war heroes to the likes of Miller, Riley, Sloan, and thousands of other soldiers and Marines who fought bravely, and are still fighting bravely to this day, I'd have to agree with you. There's even one man, an Army Combat Engineer E-7, who's being considered for the Medal of Honor for his valiant defense of his unit at Baghdad International Airport. Unfortunately, the MOH would be awarded posthumously...and worse yet, I can't even recall his name, because we the American Sheeple haven't had it drummed into our heads like Jessica Lynch's name.

There are many, many heroes serving in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. They're also serving at Fort Hood, Fort Riley, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, and anywhere else an American wears the uniform of his or her country. Some, however, put themselves above the rest, by their heroic and unselfish deeds, often at the cost of their lives or limbs. These are the feel-good stories we should focus on, not those trumped up for political purposes. I understand full well, being a former member of the media myself, that the CommieLib press will never give these men and women their due. But we FReepers shouldn't buy into the lies told us by the same media we never believe when a poll doesn't go the way we like it. They never take their agenda out of their reporting, even if it's a feel-good story that we can all get behind.

"Jessica Lynch was on our side. America's side, in a war abroad. I never forgot that."

Do you honestly think anyone has? To say I, or any other member of the "caveman" contingent has is not only an exaggeration, it's insluting.

"But to push for them at the destruction of Jessica Lynch is despicable."

Oh for Pete's sake! Who is pushing for her "destruction"? Get a grip! Your exaggerations are almost as bad as CNN's! Why do you think it's "destruction" to call for the truth? Why is it "destruction" to want people to wake up, smell the GI coffee and realize we were sold a bill of goods with the Lynch lie? There are consequences waaaaay beyond the book and the movie. If the likes of those pushing the Lynch lie get their way, in the not too distant future, 120 pound women will be standing in the ranks right next to 200 pound Cavalry Scouts, Infantrymen, Tankers, Cannoneers, etc. These combat units will be weakened and placed in danger because political correctness will have won the day, thanks in part to the minset of America after having swallowed the lie. America itself, will be in danger because of the Lynch lie. If seeing the need to draw attention to that fact equates to "destruction" in your eyes, then you need to shift some paradigms. We "cavemen" aren't trying to bash women in the service, we're calling for the truth to be heard.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

The story and the pretty face that went with it splashed on the news a lot at first.... Less over time, was my point. And the media that I watch has not been passing her off as any kind of she-rambo, but just the most famous soldier in that unit. I think our points of view are so different on just that fact that you see news stories that accept and respect her mere presence in a war zone as liberal propaganda. You seem to see it as dangerous liberal bias if her picture has any other caption than "she never should have been there".

Now there are small articles in the back pages about Jessica's wedding for those still searching for every tidbit of news. Like it or not people are interested. I am. The over-reaction ~here~ to the story, and each appearance of her name and face in the paper is unseemly treatment of one of our own troops. I would be personally embarrassed to be considered a FReeper if I knew she had read the threads about her here. 'nough said.

I support women in all the military roles they can qualify for... And I think there are many roles we can do. I know that you and I disagree on that... You probably think this makes me a feminazi too... if so, then I hope you don't mind me calling you a caveman. I don't. That major distinction, whether or not her mere enlistment in the military is a threat, is probably why our eyes see such starkly different things when we see the stories. And the threads.

Oh for Pete's sake! Who is pushing for her "destruction"? Get a grip!

This headline.... This article... trying to put one soldier up against the other. Patrick Miller's story can stand on its own... He doesn't need to be run as "more worthy than Lynch". That is what I am talking about.

"And the media that I watch has not been passing her off as any kind of she-rambo, but just the most famous soldier in that unit."

That's strange...I guess you don't read/listen to/watch Fox, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, MS-NBC, USA Radio Network, USA Today, Associated Press, Reuters, etc? All of these media carried the lie wall to wall...that she held off wave after wave of Iraqi attacks, fired 'til she ran out of ammo, killed numerous enemies, sustained gunshot and stab wounds, etc. What do you think made her famous in the first place? Just because she's a cute little blonde that got captured? No, it was the story of her heroic last stand that in reality never happened. But I have no reason to doubt your word...maybe you get your news from media other than those I mentioned above.

"I think our points of view are so different on just that fact that you see news stories that accept and respect her mere presence in a war zone as liberal propaganda."

Wrong. I see reports that make her out to be a she-Rambo, and give her credit for the heroic acts of others as liberal propoganda. Women can do, and do well, many jobs in all branches of the armed forces. If they can do a job, then I am all for them doing it. I'm not wild about the thought of single mothers being deployed, and for this reason I think single women should not be allowed to enlist, and be discharged if they're already on active duty. But I digress.

"You seem to see it as dangerous liberal bias if her picture has any other caption than "she never should have been there".

Point out to me where I said anything close to that. What I have gone on record as saying, with you and many times on FReep, is that women shouldn't be in combat arms MOSs, or Military Occupational Specialities, or in combat units. I never said women shouldn't be sent into combat theaters.

"Now there are small articles in the back pages about Jessica's wedding for those still searching for every tidbit of news. Like it or not people are interested. I am. The over-reaction ~here~ to the story, and each appearance of her name and face in the paper is unseemly treatment of one of our own troops."

If you're interested in Jessica Lynch's wedding, that's fine...more power to ya. But what over-reaction to her wedding story are you referring to? I mentioned it as an example of how she's been turned into a national icon, based on the initial lie about what she did the night of the ambush. If she doesn't want to be in the spotlight, she could easily avoid it...the Army is great at shielding it's soldiers from media attention. But I get the feeling she revels in the attention, as it will help sell more books and TV commercials. As for the threads on FReep about her, I admit I haven't read every post on every thread. But I personally have not read anything calling her a coward, a shirker, or anything else besmirching her duty with the 507th, or anything outside her control. Some of us have problems with her not coming out and denying the lie spread about her in the media, the lie which made her the icon she is today. Again, maybe the Army is telling her to keep quiet, and if that's the case, it's not her fault. But if she's keeping quiet so as to perpetuate the lie, and therefore sell more books and TV commercials, then I do have a problem with that.

"I support women in all the military roles they can qualify for... And I think there are many roles we can do. I know that you and I disagree on that..."

And again, you are wrong. Again, I ask you to point out anywhere that I have said women shouldn't serve in the military. I served 11 years in the Army, and in that time I even had women in my chain of command. Women fill many vital roles in all branches, but they do not serve in combat MOSs for a reason...they physically can't. That is just a fact of nature. However, there are many non-combat roles women can and do fill, and on that point you and I agree.

"You probably think this makes me a feminazi too..."

No, I don't. Again, I know you from your posts on other threads, and 80% of the time I agree with you. The feminazis I refer to here are the ones on DACOWITS, who likely conceived of the lie to begin with, and the ones in the media who spread the lie, reveled in it, then failed to do any investigating when Lynch's own doctor called it a lie. All of these feminazis, and their emascualted male lap-dogs in the media, are scumbags who couldn't care less about the truth, and about national security.

"That major distinction, whether or not her mere enlistment in the military is a threat, is probably why our eyes see such starkly different things when we see the stories."

Her enlistment isn't a threat. Lynch being in the theater isn't a threat. Her even being in that convoy that night isn't a threat. However, when you have an inept, incompetent chain of command like she had, "leaders" who couldn't read a map, road guards who left their posts early, radios that weren't on the right frequencies, weapons that malfunctioned because they hadn't been properly maintained and cleaned, and soldiers who didn't have the wepons they needed to fight their way out of the ambush (only one 50-cal MG for the company, no grenades or anti-tank rockets, etc.), then things get out of hand very quickly, and women who shouldn't be in combat find themselves there. I think the reason you and I see this issue differently, is that I'm a veteran, and therefore see things from the perspective of a soldier. If you've never served, then it's easy to buy into the stories the media tell. Then again, I do seem to detect a chip on your shoulder when it comes to women in the military.

The American Sheeple, and their short attention spans, need to know the truth about that night. Not just the truth about Lynch and that of Miller, but about the disgraceful bumbling that lead to the ambush on the 507th. Heads need to roll, but as long as we the Sheeple remain fat, dumb and happy, it'll never happen. The worst case scenario would be that the lie continues to take root in our national psyche, and that it would lead to the introduction of women into our combat arms ranks. This is but one reason the Lynch lie needs to be disspelled.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

I am telling you, that I watched MSNBC and/or FOX 24-7 just about, for that time period of the initial war effort and afterward. I did not go out of my way to find stories about her, but I was watching with some interest all stories relating to the war effort. I never saw any serious stories about her running out of ammo and reloading. The general public not combing the net for every obscure story hasn't heard any of that. There are lots of incorrect stories by lots of media outlets with a wide variety of agendas. And in this case it has trashed the reputation of Jessica Lynch, who should have our support. It is a scandal FReepers have for the most part made bigger than it ever should have been. It's BS.

What do you think made her famous in the first place? Just because she's a cute little blonde that got captured?

Yes.

The American Sheeple, and their short attention spans, need to know the truth about that night. Not just the truth about Lynch and that of Miller, but about the disgraceful bumbling that lead to the ambush on the 507th.

The American Sheeple neither care about the details, nor are they qualified to decide who is to 'blame'. The army can look into who did well and who did not. Hopefully they will release some stories that we can be proud of for many more troops in all parts of the action... I am not interested in heads rolling. They are all on our side.

"I am telling you, that I watched MSNBC and/or FOX 24-7 just about, for that time period of the initial war effort and afterward. I did not go out of my way to find stories about her, but I was watching with some interest all stories relating to the war effort. I never saw any serious stories about her running out of ammo and reloading."

I am truly baffled, then. If that's the case, either you had the mute button on, you don't understand English, or something. If you were watching Fox, CNN, MSNBC or any other medium, you couldn't have missed the reports. I'll dig into my archives and pull out old articles, but I really don't think that's necessary. I really don't think you're telling me the truth, sorry to say. It was impossible not to hear the wall-to-wall stories about her media-constructed "last stand".

"The general public not combing the net for every obscure story hasn't heard any of that."

Sorry...it wasn't an "obscure" story. As far as the "general public" is concerned, maybe you live out in the woods and the "general public" in your neighborhood is a couple of woodchucks and squirrels, but the "general public" out here heard the lie loudly and often, so many times it became the truth, as lies so often do.

"It is a scandal FReepers have for the most part made bigger than it ever should have been. It's BS."

You've completely shot your credibility, I'm sorry to say. The only scandal here is the one perpetrated by the Pentagon and the media, and made bigger by Lynch herslf, who won't deny that she didn't commit the acts of heroism assigned to her by the Pentagon lie. The BS is the lie itself. To deny that you never heard the lie of Lynch, Warrior Princess is highly dubious, to the point I don't think I can believe anything you say on the matter anymore.

"What do you think made her famous in the first place? Just because she's a cute little blonde that got captured?

"Yes."

You know good and doggone well that's not the case. Are you a member of DACOWITS or something? I'm not being facetious when I ask that either. You have some personal connection to this story which prevents you from accepting the truth, or admitting you know the truth.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!