Skip to comments.
The fighting person of the year: Courage in flesh and blood on the battlefield
Washington Times ^
| Thursday, January 1, 2004
| Suzanne Fields
Posted on 01/01/2004 1:56:04 AM PST by JohnHuang2
Edited on 07/12/2004 4:11:20 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
War is hell, as William Tecumseh Sherman famously said, and postwar peace can be far from heaven, too. The noblest intentions go awry on the battlefield. The idealism that starts the fight does not always filter down to those who must do the fighting.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2003review; anamericansoldier; manoftheyear; suzannefields
To: JohnHuang2
"...We look at their faces and realize how ignorant we are of what they've endured. ...Only because the leftist, the leftist professions, their metrosexual "menfolk" haven't, never have and don't serve to protect this country and its ideals. And why should they, since they are against it all.
2
posted on
01/01/2004 4:46:47 AM PST
by
Leisler
(Bored? Short of cash? Go to a Dean "Meetin". It is free, freaky and you'll laugh your butt off.)
To: Leisler
Actually, I liked the statement - clean, simple and profound. Unless you've been there, there's no way you can imagine what combat troops go through, or imagine the mental forces that mold their personalities.
The wussies (left-wing "liberals") are absolutely incapable of even admitting that the experience can build more character in the average high-school graduate than exists in a whole auditorium of left-wing PHDs.
3
posted on
01/01/2004 5:46:19 AM PST
by
trebb
To: JohnHuang2
"It's hard to find precise heroic words to describe young
men and women who are far away from home fighting to bring a better world to a population of people who aren't exactly sure what freedom means (or even whether they want it). "
Women are fighting in Iraq? I thought women did not go into combat and served only in non-combat support roles. Or does feminism and political correctness now require us to put the contributions of women in war on a par with those of men.
Wouldn't the truth be that it is our men who are fighting in Iraq, with the support of our women? Very much the same as it has always been.
4
posted on
01/01/2004 7:15:08 AM PST
by
Search4Truth
(When a man lies he murders some part of the world.)
To: Search4Truth
My thoughts exactly!
To: Search4Truth
I thought women did not go into combat and served only in non-combat support roles. You thought wrong. Women serve in many combat roles. Pilots and other aircrew for example and in the Army, SAM crews. Just about anything but front line ground combat slots. Besides, in this sort of situtation, the distinction between combat and non-combat is blurry at best. A truck driver or repair technition may suddenly find themself in combat.
6
posted on
01/01/2004 8:30:55 AM PST
by
El Gato
(Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
To: El Gato
"You thought wrong. Women serve in many combat roles. Pilots and other aircrew for example and in the Army, SAM crews. Just about anything but front line ground combat slots. Besides, in this sort of situtation, the distinction between combat and non-combat is blurry at best. A truck driver or repair technition may suddenly find themself in combat."
I suppose one can define combat in any way their agenda suits them. But it is men who are doing the real fighting, since it is men who are doing the real dying. That simple fact does not seem blurry to me.
7
posted on
01/01/2004 8:45:19 AM PST
by
Search4Truth
(When a man lies he murders some part of the world.)
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson