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. :^)