Recent relevelations suggest Miss Lynch is reisisting the feminist agenda of useing her as an icon. My respect for her personally, other than the respect I have for women in general and their essential natures and purposes, has increased. 
Posted on 11/05/2003 9:51:58 PM PST by saquin
Recent relevelations suggest Miss Lynch is reisisting the feminist agenda of useing her as an icon. My respect for her personally, other than the respect I have for women in general and their essential natures and purposes, has increased.
cyborg in the Al jazeera tape of the POWs there was a female laying on the hospital floor, they only showed her from the waist down and her underwear was stained.
From the look of the size of her thighs he did not appear to be Jessica. It appeared that whoever itwas was a bit larger than Jessica.
As are you.
You still haven't separated the women from the 100,000 (your number) who do traditional jobs in the military from those whose job puts them in active contact with the enemy. Even if all 100,000 are the latter, how specifically does where they are make war safer and produce less casualties?
By freeing up a better choice of men for the infantry.
Assuming they all are the latter, if all 100,000 were discharged today and the policy of using women in combat were reversed, don't you think that another 100,000 men would be recruited to replace them? Even without a few 30 second commercials on the media?
Commercials cost money, money that could be used for weapons and preparation. If it's so easy to get more men, why are they spending tens of millions of dollars in Nascar? If they needed to fill 100,000 holes, it would go up exponentially.
We definitely had a higher casualty rate in WWI and WWII than in the two Gulf conflicts. Did you forget that those were world wars, and at least in WWII we were fighting on two fronts, and the Gulf wars were local conflicts?
Regardless the casualty rate were higher. Our military is unqestionably the best today.
How can you rationalize the low casualty rate has anything at all to do with the presence of women? Maybe their perfume bambized the Irqui soldiers?
Filling less demanding jobs with women provides a better choice of men for the more demanding jobs. Better choice means better men, which means less casualties.
How, specifically, does an all volunteer military save lives? By assuming that the motivation is higher if a person actually volunteers? This is not born out by my direct experience.
Then you differ with everyone I've heard since Vietnam that say dedicated soldiers are better than nondedicated soldiers. I'd rather be in a foxhole with a Patrick Miller than a crackhead from LA.
Many of the Marines I founght with in Viet Nam were drafted. Each one had to tell me he was drafted. In actual service I couldn't tell the difference. I volunteered, and wasn't any more motivated than those that were drafted. Remember that men who volunteered for the service are mostly drafted from duty stations in the States, and other safe places, to go into a combat zone.
I think the all-volunteer force of today has a better record of performance than the military of Vietnam and I think it's because our military of today is made up of volunteers, not people who are trying to find any way to go home, which some of the draftees did then.
All the statements, and implications from other statements, I have read by enlisted women indicate that, beyond the few officers which are dedicated feminists with an agenda, they went in to get a job and be trained form a skill they could use in the civilian world. Of course, men do that, too, but they are capable of fighting with much less danger to themselves and others when their primary purpose is activated.
I've never advocated women for the infantry.
Can a "dedicated and diciplined" woman throw a grenade outside its blast radius, carry a wounded comrade from the field of fire, hump cases of heavey mortar rounds to the tubes, carry combat field equipment over many grid squares on patrol and still have energy to deal with a conflict? Not hardly.
But that only becomes necessary once every 12 years. In that time there were 10,000 incidents in the infantry where lives were saved because of a better choice of men.
No American woman I know of could have dealt with the American method of fighting in Viet Nam.
I've never advocated women for the infantry.
I do remember the Army coming in conflict with a group of female North Vietnamese regulars. They were used as cannon foddar by the NVC and male programing did make our men hesitate critically in small arms fire situations. But they did not prevail because, while men are hardwired to defer to women, that is overridden when women are trying to kill them. Nowhere in either Gulf "war" is there any evidence that using women in high risk jobs made any difference at all, let alone made the conflict vastly superior, unless you count the tail available to male soldiers without the necessity of going on R and R.
I think our military's record speaks for itself. It's the best, and I think it's vastly superior partly because we can put better men on the front due to more choice due to women filling less-demanding jobs.
How, specifically, does any statements from "brass hats" about a volunteer military imply that women should be placed in high risk positions? Traditionally, women have indeed volunteered, but for rear jobs.
I don't call once every 12 years high risk. More women have died stateside after all in this war, remember. The brass are career military. If it's good with them, it's good with me as long as I'm in philosophical agreement with them on most things.
You have no results to prove me wrong. Our military has always been vastly superior. The only reason that women can fill any nontraditional jobs therein at all is because of the new high tech components.
It hasn't always been vastly superior. Casualty rates used to be much higher.
Again, if all the women, even the ones in traditionals jobs were to be discharged tommorrow, unless we had a world war with the scope of the last two, the 25,000,000 men available would be able to fill the gap like the ocean filling a thimble without a draft.
But they would have to be drafted or recruited and that would cut down on their quality or money for weapons and preparation.
The experiment with women in combat has only been active since the Clinton administration. There has been no conflicts enough to provide any evidence to speak of for women doing those jobs. The vast majority of examples have been negative.
There's only been one incident, hasn't there?
You have been leaning on a "volunteer" military to support your liberal viewpoints on this topic.
LOL Advocating a strong military and self-responsibility and freedom of choice is not liberal.
I have been waiting for you to start making the other liberal argument that equal opportunity DEMANDS that women be allowed to serve in the mentioned capacities, and it's just not fair unless those who want to can. Go for it.
Instead of making up things I may say, why don't you stick to the things I've said. My agenda is a strong military. I believe letting women fill less-demanding jobs allows for better choice of men to fill the more demanding jobs which leads to a stronger force and less casualties.
There is still more to this story that has not been revealed and perhaps never will.
I remember a black soldier that was hospitalized that contradicted the story that the 507th had taken a wrong turn when the story first broke. He was either involved in the fight that day or knew what had happen. He was slightly interviewed by one of the cable news networks, but after that they never showed him again. I keep waiting for this guy to be interviewed again due to me being highly upset that this group for some reason was left alone. I think the 1st story that came out was that they were at the rear of the convoy or that they fell behind. It was something that did not sound right.
This is a thread about how Lynch was tortured by the enemy and you want to focus on the condition she kept her weapon, that's bashing in my book. And anyone else who is ignoring what the enemy did to her on this thread and are instead faulting her for this or that is bashing.
Almost all, if not all, of the other posters also did not say one ill word about Jessica.
Oh please. They ignore this article and go into the same nitpicking they've been doing since April.
She suffered more any any woman (or any man for that matter) should ever suffer.
You finally come around to saying that? How heartwarming.
People do criticize the brass and the system, and rightfully so.
Some do it all the time.
You are being too kind to the PC crowd. Remember they expect every Male soldier to be "sensitive" enought to be shocked and offended by the slightest off-color remark. And at the same time be so hard-hearted that if they are captured, the rape of a female pow would not crack them.
Imagine the average PC Male Soldier, a soldier so sensitive that he would never say a dirty joke, because it might hurt a female's feelings. Imagine that (or a real) male soldier faced with the choice of giving the enemy vital information, or watching a female soldier being violently raped. Imagine a soldier in a cell with 2 female pows, and being told after the first one is raped (in front of them), that they will come back in the morning for the other woman. Do you think that the soldier wouldn't talk, after spending the night in a cell with raped pow, and one who knows exactly what will happen if he does not talk?
Which is why I told Terrell that I prefer to listen to the brass on this subject. He insists on arguing with me about on this and another thread so I keep answering him. I have my opinion obviously, and it's not going to change due to the petty agendas of bashers.
First mistake. General or Flag officers in any branch are almost all politicians. Even the good ones are politicians to some extant and they have their agenda. PR for their particular branch, covering their butts, etc. W/ regards to Jessica Lynch, the brass has it's agenda.
I'm certainly not going to listen to you about it! lol You are a basher. I'll continue to listen to the career military brass with which I am in philosophical agreement on most things. This is the only subject I'll do that on, by the way, leave the generaling to the generals. On everything else politically I'll trust myself to minute detail.
This comment shows your lack of service (and I'm not being accusatory here, just stating a fact). I'm 27 and don't have anything against women in the service, but what I said about mixed boot camp, physical standards, etc. is true.
I was mostly joking. You bashers have no sense of humor. But it is true that we lost more women stateside to the enemy than over there.
The brass screwed the pooch because it let an unprotected convoy venture into a dangerous area. Were there ANY crew-served weapons on this convoy?
Dunno. That's for others to worry about.
And who on this thread claimed otherwise.
Every body else either got kilt and/or returned fire, especially Miller, whom you stated in another thread was not involved in this conflict.
GOOD GOSH, MAN, KEEP YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT! I SAID IT WAS WALTERS THAT WAS ELSEWHERE FROM THE LYNCH VEHICLE! Sorry to go bold on you but you must not misqote me! It's important!
Recent relevelations suggest Miss Lynch is reisisting the feminist agenda of useing her as an icon. My respect for her personally, other than the respect I have for women in general and their essential natures and purposes, has increased.
A mild hooray.
You have a very strange definition of bashing. Her capture certainly was preventable. What do you want me to do? Have a big giant cryfest about how awful it was? It was awful. But I look to see how to prevent this from happening in the future.
It's not nitpicking. Notice how the 3ID or the 1MEF didn't have this sort of Charlie Foxtrot? Did the lone officer and senior NCOs know the tactical dangers of entering the town, not once, but twice?
Nah, it's the same as the press does to Reagan. He won the Cold War and yet all the press focuses on is AIDS or something.
Her capture certainly was preventable. What do you want me to do? Have a big giant cryfest about how awful it was? It was awful. But I look to see how to prevent this from happening in the future.
You look how to nail something on her on as thread that shows how much she had to endure to survive. The weapons story is months old, this is new. We can't have people think of what she had to go through to survive, can we, we have to dig up months old stories about weapons breakdowns that we've already covered ad-nauseum. Rather could make the same claim as you. He could say he's just telling the news, but he's not just telling the news when he only focuses on things that make Republicans look bad, he's bashing Republicans.
It's not nitpicking.
Yep it is.
Notice how the 3ID or the 1MEF didn't have this sort of Charlie Foxtrot? Did the lone officer and senior NCOs know the tactical dangers of entering the town, not once, but twice?
I'm sure it was covered a few months ago. Let's keep talking about it for another six months. And let's only mention it on threads that aren't bashing Lynch to turn them into threads that do bash Lynch.
I can listen to them as well as you can.
Don't believe that every General is an angel.
I didn't say they were. I said I'll listen to the ones that are in philosophical agreement with me on most things.
Stop calling me a basher.
You ignore the topic of the thread and lay months-old charges of weapons maintenance on Lynch. You are a basher.
I criticize the military's practices because I care about people losing their lives or being captured by the enemy. My unit (a rear area unit) has a bunch of people who don't know how to handle a weapon. In this type of war, we could easily be subjected to a rear area, irregular attack if recalled.
That's better.
What does this have to do with anything?
"You look how to nail something on her on as thread that shows how much she had to endure to survive."
What is your goal, your purpose? To elicit praise for Jessica? I think Jessica has a tremendous spirit, but if we just praise her spirit and bravery while carrying on and changing nothing, more troops will suffer like she did. If you know about the weapons failures, et. al. fine. I have no beef with you.
But please remember, bashing Lynch's superiors is not bashing Lynch. Bashing her circumstances, is not bashing lynch.
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.