Replies

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.