They did. This article is about one. No, Miller wasn't riding in the Humvee.
Then why the media blitz for someone who didn't do anything except get hurt?
Because she was a lone rescuee. Them's the breaks. Other lone rescuees are Terry Anderson and O'Grady. Those names are remembered also.
She shouldn't be the focus of the media but she is.
She was rescued in a dramatic rescue operation. You can't stop people from being interested in who she is and people are interested in who she is, including you bashers since you focus on her almost exclusively.
What did Shoshana do? What did Shoshana do that couldn't be done better by several million men who weren't in the military? The point here is that there are a vast number of men suited to this work, what is the need to use women?
Dunno, I'm not going to pick apart Shoshana's actions or even look at them, I just appreciate her service. I'm going to leave the picking-apart to the Army and let them decide. Take this subject up with women freepers here who have served, it's not something I'm going to opine about. There are military female freepers here who have done jobs similar to Lynch's for 15 or so years, I'm certainly not going to tell them that they were out of their element or that they were a drag on our military. I don't believe they were, obviously. If you want to tell them that they were though, it's a free country.
Tell someone else? Do you support sending women into combat?
Not in infantry. That's my only opinion on that subject. If the Army decides that working maintenance is too physically demanding for women, then I can live with that. If they decide it's not and that the odds of another 507th mishap happening again are low enough that they're better served by filling the maintenance ranks with women, then that's fine with me too. I believe in an all-volunteer force, I believe it's safer.
Her case would show evidence? It didn't?
Why not? Didn't Shoshana fight, or wasn't she in a position to fight? If she was in a position to fight and/or fought, then those of you that are so against females working maintenance should look at her case.
Perhaps, perhaps not. You mentioned that successful hostage rescues are rare. The why this rescue for one rescuee?
They got a tip.
She did no worse at being unconscious than the other unconscious men?
Yep.
But would she equal a male soldier? Common sense indicate she would not.
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. 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.
I'm imagining the media hype around Miss Lynch?
You're imagining that her case is unique. It's not, we've always celebrated individual lives being saved when circumstance dictates that an individual's name be known.
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.
