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?
