[William Terrell]

The 1999 number of Americans in the armed forces was 1,490,000. Even if it doubled for 2003, that would be only 2,980,000. That leaves 25,000,000 men yet to be tapped. A media sustained call for volunteers would certainly yield a 100,000 or so men to replace the 100,000 women (we still don't know how many of that number serve in traditional rear echelon and clerical duties).

There is absolutely no reason to put women in or near combat.

Because of the hardwired male response to women (not culture specific) and the physical charateristics of women, not to mention the relaxed physical standards to which they are held, I can't buy that an entirely voluntary force toploaded with women would be more efficient, save more lives, and win more wars with less casualties.

A "button pusher" in line for contact with the enemy calls into play the three considerations above, albeit less frequent than active front line work.

There have been incidents in each conflict, in which women were used in active confrontation, where they were captured and raped, or otherwise savaged. Articles on that topic were posted here on FR during the conflicts when such cases came to light. The statement of only one such incident in 12 years, besides being the span between the first Gulf war and this one, fails.

There have been also articles posted here during these conflicts where women were discharged for reason of pregnancy. This doesn't not happen with men.

List the reasons against women serving in capacities that bring into contact with the enemy in one column and those for in another. See which is longer.

Using women in harm's way in armed conflict is not a conservative concept; it is a liberal concept. It has been tried before in other places and abandoned.

But thank you for posting your beliefs on FR. Liberal concepts can't be refuted unless there is a dialog.

[#3Fan]

Having female soldiers do button-pushing jobs frees up a better choice of men for the infantry. A volunteer force is better than a drafted force, female soldiers make an all-volunteer force more attainable. Extra money would have to be spent on recruitment instead of weapons and preparation if we got rid of female soldiers. There have been only two incidents of women getting engaged in combat over the last 12 years. During this time many other soldiers lives were saved because of the better choice that having female soldiers in less-physically-demanding jobs provides. Our military has proven itself vastly superior to all others with this set-up. A strong military and personal choice and responsibility are conservative ideals, so my position definetly isn't liberal.

[#3Fan]

I'm not going to disparage our military or the people that serve our country in uniform because of some agenda, so you might as well give up. What's good enough for the Army brass that I am in philosophical agreement with is good enough for me.

[wardaddy]

Good Work!