[#3Fan]

I don't see how recruiting men to replace the females changes who goes into the infantry (women are forbidden these types of jobs, but males choose whatever MOS they like and so the same people would go into the infantry regardless, but the support troops would be safer when they come into contact with the enemy, because you would have that many more David Miller's...

You mean Patrick?

...and that many fewer Jessica Lynch's). So much for that theory.

By filling up the less-demanding jobs with women, there is a better choice of men for the more-demanding jobs. More choice means better men which saves lives.

Come up with $2.2 BILLION worth of savings from recruiting females or admit that your theory about saving money is baseless.

You just threw a bunch of numbers out there and you got Miller's name wrong so how do I know you're right about your numbers? The cost to recruitment goes up exponentially as you need more and more holes filled. By replacing every female, the recruitment costs would be much more for the last holes to be filled than the first due to the law of diminishing returns. Regardless, my main point was the lives saved aspect and better fighting men. If more units got in trouble due to a lesser choice of men, it would overshadow the extra health care costs, not to mention the soldier's lives, which you can't put a price on. If women are so worthless and too expensive to employ, why due companies hire them?

[91B]

Companies-in the private sector-may do what they like. The expense of employing females in the private sector, and whatever benefits they provide to companies is irrelevant. How that has any bearing on what females cost the military is totally beside the question (again!). You don't explain how having more females equates to more males in the infantry since everyone chooses whatever military job they wish on enlisting (females are excluded from the Infantry, Armor, Artillery and a few other MOS's). Those that would choose infanty would still choose infantry-you are drawing on a males only pool in any event. I fail to see how having more males to choose from for all male careers would result in less quality.

Now who's laughing. I got Miller's name wrong-big deal. I've provided facts and sources to bolster my arguments. You haven't sone anything but theorize (and I've shot every single one of those down).

I've shown an addition $2.2 Billion in health care costs alone for the military to provide for females (leaving out time lost from work due to those same injuries, pregnancy and the fact that women are about 180% more likely than men to leave the service early). You haven't supported a single one of your theories with even the vaguest imitation of a fact. This hardly qualifies as a debate, this is just me smacking you around. You're a glutton for punishment, but I refuse to let someone as ignorant as you have the last word on a topic as important as this.