Replies

All you seem to be doing is repeating yourself.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.