Iraqis raped Lynch during her captivity, book reveals

Maybe bmwcyle would like to experience being "spoiled" the way Jessica was. I'll buy ya a ticket to Bad Dead if your game, bmwcyle. The Iraqis' goats and sheep will be glad to get some time off while their masters "spoil" you.

Yor are repeating. I'm asking questions and you're not answering, so I repeat the question.

By freeing up a better choice of men for the infantry.

The only number they can "free up" is 100,000. I'll ask again, what difference does 100,000 make, when there are 25,000,000 more men to chose form if all 100,000 women were discharged completely?

If all of those 100,000 women were in jobs that allow direct contact with the enemy, then how does that free up men. For closer contact with the eneny? Evidently, the job Miss Lynch, as an example, couldn't get more into contact with the enemy.

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.

The government spends millions of dollars with ridiculous drug ads. That money could be freed up to advertise for 100,000 more men to replace the women (or to the replace the 20 or so who really are in jobs with enemy contact).

But they don't need to recruit more men, you see. We have plenty in the military for the demand now, even without the 100,000 women. Why not just recruit more men from the vast 25,000,000 base if they need more? Why use women, except in clerical jobs, at all?

Regardless the casualty rate were higher. Our military is unqestionably the best today.

You don't distinguish between 1) a world war with many countries and millions of men involved with constant front line conflicts over a corse of years, and 2) maybe four or five small local conflicts involving ten of thousands of men with sporatic front line conflicts over a course of weeks?

Wouldn't you think that the former would product a hell of a lot more casuslties from just the nature of the conflict?

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.

Casualties are born mostly in duties that bring soldiers into conflict with the enemy.

Listen carefully here, since Miss Lynch was in a job that brought her into conclict with the enemy, precisely how would women in those jobs lessen casualties? Miss Lench was already doing such a job.

Are you trying to say that if Miss Lynch were not there, and a man was, there would be more casualties? How so, since apparently Miss Lynch didn't do anything?

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.

No doubt some did, but the vast majority did their job as well as a volunteer. You are not listening. What does the theory, that an all volunteer Army does better, do with using women in combat positions when we've already seen that the women in the Miss Lynch incident made no difference?

What man did Miss Lynch "release" for combat that wouldn't have done better in her place?

I've never advocated women for the infantry.

What? What difference was there between the incident in question and "combat"?

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.

Here is the 12 years thing again. I've already shown that your logic is faulty. Sure didn't save more lives in this incident, did it?

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.

What is our military's record now as opposed to before the Clinton administration? Again, how did Miss Lynch fill a "less demanding job" that released a man to the "front"? Where she was, was the front.

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.

Our brass now you mean? The ones who have buckled to feminist pressure? Tell me, what would the real brass, like Patton, MacArthur, and others, that won the world wars and Korean war think about that?

But they would have to be drafted or recruited and that would cut down on their quality or money for weapons and preparation.

So what? That is your theory. There is not evidence for it. If there is good, logical, statistical, numerical evidence, then post it. Repeating a platitude means nothing.

There's only been one incident, hasn't there?

There have been many incidents over the years of the physical weakness of women and the specifics of their natures causing trouble and death in the military, and each one posted here. I have read them so you must have, too, since you hang out on these threads. Look 'em up.

LOL Advocating a strong military and self-responsibility and freedom of choice is not liberal.

You are repeating a statement I already refuted in a prior post on this thread. But, tell me again. Only in the Clinton administration were women placed in dangerous jobs. Prior to that, they were not. Justify that putting women in those jobs is a conservative position, then define "conservative".

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.

Some people believe that the Moon is made of green cheese, too.

"You just can't deal with not getting to see a tearful huggy tv hallmark kodak moment between Lynch and al-Rehaief. You feel cheated that she will meet him and thank hi privately. You feel you are owed a spectacle. In your 'itchy complaining, you provide us with the spectacle of you, 'itching. It's not a pretty sight."

Your response is the most ridiculous I've seen yet.

What I believe is that this ugly *itch has an obligation to thank this gentleman, the Iraqi lawyer for saving her pretentious life. If it were not for him we would not be plagued with her existence.

"It was in his best interest to get involved. He was an opportunist. He saw a chance to get on the good side of his new masters and took it. He got out of his hellhole of a home country as fast as he could, landed a cushy lobbying firm job, a book deal and a tv movie deal. Good for him. Unlike some here, I like opportunistic people."

Yeah right. It was NOT to his advantage to get involved with Jessica. Have you no idea what sadaam insane DID to people? You obvioulsy don't understand that because you lack balls and intelligence.

COnsidering the evil and punishment this lawyer risked in saving this *itch, he deserves all the money, fame and happiness that he can stand. As for the *itch, I don't know of ANYONE interested in buying her book or viewing any movie. OTOH, MANY want to see and get to know this brave man.

"But Lynch doesn't recall him or the slapping incident he claims to have witnessed. the Iraqi's at the hospital say he was never there, his wife never worked there. He somehow found out about her being there and embellished a story to get him and his family out of dodge and in the money."

Isn't it amazing how selective her recall is? Yet someone how OUR military CONFIRMED what he said since they are the ones that SPOKE with HIM. She makes the "material girl" look saintly.

"And how do you know she didn't thank him? All you know is that you didn't get to watch it on the boob tube. Get over it."

You're too much. On the one hand she isn't supposed to remember him. Next well he was an opportunist. Now even though she doesn't remember him and never met him she was supposed to have thanked him. You are one confused puppy.

The reason I know she never thanked him is from the Iraqi himself. She has yet to speak to him, write to him or God forbide allow him in her royal presence.

"He was there for a book promotion, she wasn't going to his book promotion to thank him. Open your ears and don't let CNN fool you like this. I think you want to be fooled though."

SO what! That's still no excuse for her not to take 2 minutes and just thank the guy. Is she so greedy that she doesn't want to endorse HIS book because it may take a few bucks from her book and movie?

I haven't watched CNN in years. I watch FOX.

[ The Iraqi's rape everyone they capture, male and female alike. ]

Exactely.....

What I believe is that this ugly *itch has an obligation to thank this gentleman, the Iraqi lawyer for saving her pretentious life. If it were not for him we would not be plagued with her existence.

Finally now, we get down to what is really 'itching you. You are dissappointed that she made it back alive.

You make wild generalizations about things that you have absolutely no first hand knowledge and you think that you have "turned it around" on me?

Yes, all military jobs require physical strength-that's why they will kick you out if you don't pass your PT test, that's also why they won't let the physically disabled join. You still haven't addressed the issue of whether or not an Army 5 ton has power steering and pointing out that most large vehicles do is completely beside the point.

I never said male Marines struggle to outdo female Marines, I said that all-male boot camp presents males with the opportunity to prove themselves men (to prove their masculinity). And yes, males have to do things to graduate boot camp that females do not. Female Marines do not have to do a single chin-up to graduate, but males are expected to meet a much stricter standard. When you have mixed gender boot camp standards are set according to the least common denominator. So when females are present physical standards are not as exacting (this has been well documented in books such as "Making the Corps" and "Women in Military: Flirting with Disaster") as when the training is done with males alone. The Clinton era policy of mixed gender boot camp results in a watered down training environment that does not prepare young soldiers as well for combat as well as they might be.

Why don't you point out a job that you think does not require physical strength to preform and I will show you how you are wrong in that assumption?

The difference between us is that I am talking about things that I have direct, first hand knowledge of and you are making wild generalizations about things you have absolutely no clue about.

Up until this point I have avoided talking about Jessica Lynch directly because I prefer to focus on the larger issue of women in the military and the problems that come from ignoring basic human biology. I will use what happened to Lynch to illustrate how this applies in the real world. Suppose for a minute that Lynch had not been rendered unconcious during the fighting. And suppose that one of her male compatriots in the vehicle with her would have lived (I believe that the 1SG was in her vehicle so let's use him for our example). The male is injured and cannot escape under his own power. Do you think that Lynch-five foot three and 120 pounds-could have carried him to safety? The policy that you are defending is dangerous and can cost people their lives. It is only in place to placate feminists like Patsy Schroder who don't give a fig about who gets hurt so long as she can advance her agenda.

You are her useful idiot.

"Finally now, we get down to what is really 'itching you. You are dissappointed that she made it back alive."

No she wasn't worth saving. Have you read how she recently condemned the Pentagon for filming her rescue? Think she also condemns recues and old footage on REAL heros? I distincly remember Bush Sr. being filmed in his rescue. Maybe we should burn that to make your little lefty happy.

Leave her alone.

And who on this thread claimed otherwise.

On this thread? I don't know. I haven't read the thread. On other threads there were many claims that were not in the report.

If you agree that's all that happened, how is she a hero (heroine)?

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!

Walters? I thought we were talking aobut Miller. I assume you mean Miller, which was whom I was talking about on the other thread.

You assumed I was talking about just the vehicle Miss Lynch was riding in. I was talking about the group that was in this same situation, Group 3.

We don't know the disposition of Buggs and Anguiano, the other men in the truck. It remains under investigation.

Why is it so important to not misquote you? Are you some sort of prophet? People misquote me all the time, usually from error in memory. Big deal. I just find my original quote and declare it.

She's been thru a lot for a 20 year old. God bless her as she tries to get her health back and go on with her life.

luckystarmom says, Post 26, "I could take being raped if I knew I was defending my country."

-- Sorry, lucky, I disagree. FYI, I'm a five point female vet from the mid 70's. It was a different army back then. I don't know if I'd join up today. JMO. But I'm proud of the brave women and men serving in the Gulf. They're a tougher crew than I was at age 21 when I went in the Service. God bless 'em all.

You didn't read my subsequent posts.

Since you are a female vet, then I have a question. Did you expect to be raped if you were captured during combat?

If I joined the military, I would assume that was one of the risks of joining along with dying in action. I would assume those risk in order to serve my country.

Now, I am not in the military, and I have not assumed those risks.

I'm also very proud of the men and women serving in the Gulf. I do not know for sure but I am guessing that they know the risks involved in serving their country. I'm guessing that the women know that if they are captured they would probably be raped. This is what makes them even braver because they know what the risks are.

Her recall is selective? The staff at the Iraqi hospital say that he was never there. Does she select their memory for them also? You seem to have a personal interest in this guy. No one is buying his book according to Amazon and Elizabeth Smart's movie is expected to beat his Sunday night. You must know the few people who are interested in him.

He was there for a book promotion, she wasn't going to his book promotion to thank him. Open your ears and don't let CNN fool you like this. I think you want to be fooled though

Look there is something called being gracious. We know he helped save her life, he was in her hometown. Could she have given 1 hour of her time to make a public thank you and take a picture?

She would look gracious and thankful for the Iraqi lawyer's help in directing her rescuers to her. End of story, no contoversy, but no she snubs him, controversy and she looks ungreatful, IMO.

Also saying that she didn't like her rescue being filmed shows a bit of self centerness. One the film will be used for future training for future rescues, second like it or not people had a vested interest in her, due to the press coverage. People were happy to see her alive and she seems ungreatful that people cared about her and wanted to see a picture of her alive and rescued.

I don't know if she being coached or if those are here true feelings, but she seems to be ungracious. I know that she went through more pain than I probably ever will in my life and appreciate her sacrifice, but there is something about having grace in a situation and it may be she is lacking because she is very young, but JMO, she could have said thank you for all the prayers people sent to her and not make people feel guilty because they watched her rescue on TV.

Many woman would disagree with you, women who have endured both, that is.

Have you mistaken me for someone who really cares about this?

Jessica Lynch has angrily accused the Pentagon of using her for propaganda.

That's made up by the media. She said she was hurt that a story was wrong but I don't see where she's angry. Plus, it wasn't propaganda it was filmed for morale.

Yor are repeating.

As are you.

I'm asking questions and you're not answering, so I repeat the question. The only number they can "free up" is 100,000. I'll ask again, what difference does 100,000 make, when there are 25,000,000 more men to chose form if all 100,000 women were discharged completely?

A big difference. Extra money would have to be spent on recruiting which takes away from preparation and weapons from the front. Plus if they had to draft, there would be more casualties because of non-committed soldiers.

If all of those 100,000 women were in jobs that allow direct contact with the enemy, then how does that free up men. For closer contact with the eneny? Evidently, the job Miss Lynch, as an example, couldn't get more into contact with the enemy.

It only happens once every 12 years on a fluke. During those 12 years many lives are saved by having a better choice of men on the front.

The government spends millions of dollars with ridiculous drug ads. That money could be freed up to advertise for 100,000 more men to replace the women (or to the replace the 20 or so who really are in jobs with enemy contact).

Or it could go to the front if women kept doing button-pushing jobs.

But they don't need to recruit more men, you see. We have plenty in the military for the demand now, even without the 100,000 women. Why not just recruit more men from the vast 25,000,000 base if they need more? Why use women, except in clerical jobs, at all?

Because that money spent on recruitment could be better spent on weapons and preparation. They wouldn't be spending tens of millions in Nascar if they had an endless supply.

You don't distinguish between 1) a world war with many countries and millions of men involved with constant front line conflicts over a corse of years, and 2) maybe four or five small local conflicts involving ten of thousands of men with sporatic front line conflicts over a course of weeks?

Sure. But difference is so obvious, more than a change of scenery.

Wouldn't you think that the former would product a hell of a lot more casuslties from just the nature of the conflict?

Maybe some. But the difference is more than a change in scenery.

Casualties are born mostly in duties that bring soldiers into conflict with the enemy.

Yep, and the better the soldiers are in those conflicts, the less casualties there are.

Listen carefully here, since Miss Lynch was in a job that brought her into conclict with the enemy, precisely how would women in those jobs lessen casualties? Miss Lench was already doing such a job.

Because of their frequency. It only happens once every 12 years. In those 12 years there have been 10,000 incidents. Lives were saved here and there in those 10,000 incidents due to a better choice of men.

Are you trying to say that if Miss Lynch were not there, and a man was, there would be more casualties? How so, since apparently Miss Lynch didn't do anything?

If 100,000 women were removed, that would cause the Army to fill jobs that could be done with women with men, thereby decreasing the choice of men for the infantry, therefore contributing to the casualty rate in between 12 year flukes.

No doubt some did, but the vast majority did their job as well as a volunteer.

But not all. And that led to more casualties.

You are not listening. What does the theory, that an all volunteer Army does better, do with using women in combat positions when we've already seen that the women in the Miss Lynch incident made no difference?

A Lynch-type incident only happens once every 12 years. In those 12 years there will be 10,000 front line incidents. By having a better choice of men for the front line, casuaties are reduced in those 10,000 incidents.

What man did Miss Lynch "release" for combat that wouldn't have done better in her place?

Perhaps one of the men that rescued her. Maybe that man would've been pushing a button somewhere instead. And remember it was a man that got them lost and so you can't say that she wouldn't have een there if she were a man.

What? What difference was there between the incident in question and "combat"?

Frequency of occurance. That'll probably be the only time the 507th exchanges angry fire.

Here is the 12 years thing again. I've already shown that your logic is faulty.

The last time was 12 years ago, wasn't it?

Sure didn't save more lives in this incident, did it?

It did for whoever was freed up to do infantry. Whereever those men are, their buddies are probably glad to have them there.

What is our military's record now as opposed to before the Clinton administration?

They set a record for advancement.

Again, how did Miss Lynch fill a "less demanding job" that released a man to the "front"?

If she didn't do her job a man would've had to, limiting the coice of men for the front.

Where she was, was the front.

By a 12 year fluke. In the meantime there are 10,000 incidents where a better choice of men saves lives.

Our brass now you mean?

Rumsfeld, Wolfewitz(sp?), Bush.

The ones who have buckled to feminist pressure?

If they have I haven't seen it.

Tell me, what would the real brass, like Patton, MacArthur, and others, that won the world wars and Korean war think about that?

That's like asking why Jefferson didn't free his slaves.

So what? That is your theory.

Yep. It's my theory and I'm sticking to it until I see right-minded evidence that shows otherwise. You vote your theories and I'll vote mine. I also have theories about flat taxes, freedom of speech, freedom to bear arms, and private property rights that are based on logic and common sense instead of some bureacrat report.

There is not evidence for it.

It's logical.

If there is good, logical, statistical, numerical evidence, then post it. Repeating a platitude means nothing.

No. lol I can vote my theories based on logic and common sense if I want to. I do on a lot of subjects, like the ones listed above. You started this discussion with me here, not vice-versa.

There have been many incidents over the years of the physical weakness of women and the specifics of their natures causing trouble and death in the military, and each one posted here. I have read them so you must have, too, since you hang out on these threads. Look 'em up.

I've heard about the incident in Gulf War 1 and this one, what else is there?

You are repeating a statement I already refuted in a prior post on this thread.

So conservatives don't stand for a strong military or self-responsibilty or freedom of choice?

But, tell me again. Only in the Clinton administration were women placed in dangerous jobs. Prior to that, they were not. Justify that putting women in those jobs is a conservative position, then define "conservative".

Conservative like a strong military. Providing a better choice of men for the front makes for a stronger military.

Some people believe that the Moon is made of green cheese, too.

Obviously you believe that a choice out of a larger pool of men doesn't lead to more strength.