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. How much money would be spent on recruiting than the money already spent on recruiting? How much money is spent on "preparation and weapons"? What, specifically are you talking aobut when you speak of those two things?
These things you have to answer before you can evaluate a difference as "big".
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.
I asked, "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."
You are saying that one instance of a woman contacting the enemy 12 years ago and one now. Support your answer with logic or cites. What was the "one" instance 12 years ago?
Or it could go to the front if women kept doing button-pushing jobs.
Cite the number of women doing putton pushing jobs that are not in the tradition area of women's service.
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've said exactly that three time before. Cite some logical or statistical support for it.
Sure. But difference is so obvious, more than a change of scenery.
I asked, "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?"
Please explain your answer.
But not all. And that led to more casualties.
I said that in my experience during 13 months in Viet Nam, in actual combat, that the draftees did as good a job as the volunteers. I was a volunteer. Let me be more precise. Every single draftee, without exception, I served with did as good as his counterpart volunteer.
Please cite your experience, examples or statistics that makes you think draftees do a worse job in combat and that leads to more casualties.
Have you ever served in combat with draftees?
Frequency of occurance. That'll probably be the only time the 507th exchanges angry fire.
You're telling me that if a conflict happens less than so many times, it can't be called "combat"?
They set a record for advancement.
I asked, "What is our military's record now as opposed to before the Clinton administration?"
Cite the record for advancement.
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.
But you have cited no logic or data that supports your theory. The 12 year thing is as close to it as you come. That is how long it was between the first Gulf war and this one. 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.
You have not run through any logical sequence that lead to your conclusions. Do you know what logic is? It is a line of reasoning from known facts to reasonable conjecture.
I may have indeed started the discussion with you. This means you don't have to support your conclusions?
The rest of this post is essentially the same statement over and over again. As I said before, I ask questions and you repeat yourself. My first line in the post to which you are answering was, "You are repeating. I'm asking questions and you're not answering, so I repeat the question." You split the statement to avoid to the implication.
Thanks for your participation. I'm through. I think any here that may have been ambiguous about the principles involved in women in combat roles would see the lack of any substance in your position. That's enough for me.
Bye.
How much money would be spent on recruiting than the money already spent on recruiting?Tens of millions maybe.
How much money is spent on "preparation and weapons"?
Each dollar taken from the front increases the odds of a casualty. Million-dollar Nascar races are decided by a $1 valve stem sometimes.
What, specifically are you talking aobut when you speak of those two things?
Maybe they could use a new simulator, maybe they could use more live round fire. Perhaps these budgets would be cut if tens of millions more would have to be spent on recruitment.
These things you have to answer before you can evaluate a difference as "big".
I think little differences are big when our soldier's lives depend on these things.
I asked, "If all of those 100,000 women were in jobs that allow direct contact with the enemy, then how does that free up men.
Apparently there isn't close contact with the enemy if it only happens every twelve years. Women stateside had more contact with the enemy than military women.
For closer contact with the eneny? Evidently, the job Miss Lynch, as an example, couldn't get more into contact with the enemy."
Yep, but the freqency is only once every twelve years.
You are saying that one instance of a woman contacting the enemy 12 years ago and one now. Support your answer with logic or cites. What was the "one" instance 12 years ago?
Whoever it was that got sexually molested. Starts with a C. Free Republic wasn't around then where the unsavory elements of the right could attack her like they do with Lynch so I don't know her exact name. Cournan?
Cite the number of women doing putton pushing jobs that are not in the tradition area of women's service.
100,000 was my number, just a guess. What is it?
You've said exactly that three time before. Cite some logical or statistical support for it.
I can't put it any plainer. If they had plenty of men signing up, they wouldn't have to run several cars in Nascar. Those sponsorships are about $16 million per car.
Please explain your answer.
What's to explain. I think the superiority of our military is based more on it's structure than it's scenery.
I said that in my experience during 13 months in Viet Nam, in actual combat, that the draftees did as good a job as the volunteers. I was a volunteer. Let me be more precise. Every single draftee, without exception, I served with did as good as his counterpart volunteer.
Your sample size is pretty small. Many higher-ups have said that they prefer an all-volunteer force.
Please cite your experience, examples or statistics that makes you think draftees do a worse job in combat and that leads to more casualties.
I've said several times that I haven't served. Higher-ups that I have philosophical agreement with have said they prefer an all-volunteer force. It's logical to me. I'd rather be serving with a guy that volunteered for the cause rather than a guy that may not believe in the cause or who may even loathe the military.
Have you ever served in combat with draftees?
Nope. But I've heard what higher-ups have said and they say an all-volunteer force is better. It makes logical sense to me.
You're telling me that if a conflict happens less than so many times, it can't be called "combat"?
Yeah, they may see combat, but the odds are pretty low.
I asked, "What is our military's record now as opposed to before the Clinton administration?"
They set a record for advancing across enemy territory.
Cite the record for advancement.
Their push through Iraq.
But you have cited no logic or data that supports your theory.
My posts have been all logic and theory.
The 12 year thing is as close to it as you come.
That's not logic or theory, that's data.
That is how long it was between the first Gulf war and this one. No.
It's data, not logic or theory.
You have not run through any logical sequence that lead to your conclusions.
Most of my posts have been logic and theory.
Do you know what logic is? It is a line of reasoning from known facts to reasonable conjecture.
Yep. It's a fact that there are women in the military. It's data that women were confronted by the enemy only twice in 12 years. From those we can apply logic and come up with theories.
I may have indeed started the discussion with you. This means you don't have to support your conclusions?
I am through logic and theory.
The rest of this post is essentially the same statement over and over again.
Your questions are repeating over and over.
As I said before, I ask questions and you repeat yourself.
You repeat the same questions.
My first line in the post to which you are answering was, "You are repeating. I'm asking questions and you're not answering, so I repeat the question." You split the statement to avoid to the implication.
Who did what with where? lol What was that again?
Thanks for your participation. I'm through. I think any here that may have been ambiguous about the principles involved in women in combat roles would see the lack of any substance in your position. That's enough for me.
Fine with me. Everyone has to vote what they think makes sense.