How many men do you reckon Miss Lynch turned loose to the front lines? How many of your 100,000 number of women in the services are in rear echelon and clerical duties? If the services were short 100,000 women, how would that matter at all? There are 25,000,000 men to draw from, and you would get such a paltry number like 100,000 with one media call.
We used the draft in WWI and WWII and won both wars. You can provide no reasonable evidence that the casualties would have been any lighter had women been used, or an all volunteer force was used. Most platoon, company and battalion tactics call for merely the presence of someone who has the upper body strength to perservere, and do thing like throw a grenade farther than its blast radius.
There is no evidence from past experiments that indicate women in dangerous roles in combat, other than when they have to fight at the last ditch end (and then no evidence that their contrabution preveiled) produce positive results.
Our military has not proven itself vastly superior to all others with this set-up. This setup is entirely experimental, and contrary to what we know has worked in the past. Why do it for such chancey consequences and such a feeble possible return?
A strong military and personal choice and responsibility are conservative ideals, so my position definetly isn't liberal.
But what you are advocating is a weaker military, based on historical successes. Personal is choice is not a conservative concept. Just ask anyone who want to put certain substances in his body without permission.
How many men do you reckon Miss Lynch turned loose to the front lines?1
How many of your 100,000 number of women in the services are in rear echelon and clerical duties? If the services were short 100,000 women, how would that matter at all?
It would drop the choice down 100,000. That's a lot.
There are 25,000,000 men to draw from, and you would get such a paltry number like 100,000 with one media call.
Media calls cost money. Money that could be used for weapons. They're already spending tens of millions on Nascar sponsorships alone.
We used the draft in WWI and WWII and won both wars.
With a much higher casualty rate.
You can provide no reasonable evidence that the casualties would have been any lighter had women been used, or an all volunteer force was used.
Most of the brass thinks an all-volunteer force is better. If it's better, it saves lives.
Most platoon, company and battalion tactics call for merely the presence of someone who has the upper body strength to perservere, and do thing like throw a grenade farther than its blast radius.
It also calls for people that are dedicated and disciplined.
There is no evidence from past experiments that indicate women in dangerous roles in combat, other than when they have to fight at the last ditch end (and then no evidence that their contrabution preveiled) produce positive results.
It allows for an all volunteer force and better choice of men in the infantry. Those are positive results.
Our military has not proven itself vastly superior to all others with this set-up.
Yes it has! Does Gulf War 1 and Gulf War 2 ring a bell? lol
This setup is entirely experimental, and contrary to what we know has worked in the past. Why do it for such chancey consequences and such a feeble possible return?
I don't call winning two major wars, against the 4th largest army in the world in one case, with extrememly light casualties "feeble results".
But what you are advocating is a weaker military, based on historical successes.
Recents results prove you wrong. Our military has proven itself vastly superior.
Personal is choice is not a conservative concept. Just ask anyone who want to put certain substances in his body without permission.
Don't quote me out of context. I said personal choice and responsibility. It's irresponsible to choose to get drugged up and kill other people, or to choose to have an abortion.