Posted on 05/13/2004 12:10:06 AM PDT by kattracks
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:21:47 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
May 13, 2004 -- WASHINGTON - Shocking shots of sexcapades involving Pfc. Lynndie England were among the hundreds of X-rated photos and videos from the Abu Ghraib prison scandal shown to lawmakers in a top-secret Capitol conference room yesterday.
"She was having sex with numerous partners. It appeared to be consensual," said a lawmaker who saw the photos.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
I've been there, so I know what goes on in the DMZ. Bottom line, women have no place in a combat role, no place guarding male prisoners. Now, how about you putting some windex on your navel?
If you've really been there, (as in served there, not taken the guided tour), then you should know better. If you took the guided tour that the media get, then I can see why you would be unaware that our troops really do go into the DMZ. If you were there for any length of time, you must have heard that "Korean bullets don't kill." It's kind of a standing joke. So if you're going to try to tell me that the soldiers who went on patrol into the DMZ, accomplished their mission, and came out unscathed don't belong in the military, don't bother. I can't imagine what you could possibly say that would convince me you know more about those soldiers or their mission than the man who led them.
"You need to do some research on what really goes on at the DMZ. Those fairy tales you've been reading are not accurate. Our soldiers really do go out on patrol in the DMZ. When they encounter North Koreans, do you think they sit down over a cup of tea and have a nice friendly chat? What exactly do you think is going on there? What do you think has prevented Seoul from being wiped off the map? Kind words from Kerry? Before you jump all over someone, and call men who have been there liars, you really should find out the truth. It's disheartening to see people claiming to support our troops on one hand, and on the other hand calling them liars for claiming there are patrols at the DMZ. You don't seem to mind them protecting your freedoms, so long as you don't have to admit that's what they're doing. It's a big world out there, and just because the media is focused on Iraq, doesn't mean the rest of our troops are sitting around admiring their manhood."
You are a flipping illiterate idiot.
The post was about the stupidity of putting women in combat roles, not whether or not we patrol the DMZ.
Your husband may be an honorable man, but he married an a mental midget with 0 reading comprehension.
The guards there are probably buying digicams in expectation.
What's your point, that being a combat veteran makes any stupid crap you happen to spew unquestionable?
Read post #399. It addresses your problem.
"People who refuse to recognize others for their accomplishments, and instead judge everyone based on race, gender, or other physical characteristics are extremely narrow minded. They will often ignore any and all facts that are contrary to their agenda. If a soldier is recognized for accomplishments rather than gender, that would mean that some women have accomplished more than some men, and we can't have that. Women must all be categorized as inferior to men. Another effect of this reasoning is that men who never accomplish anything can still be proud, because the only thing that really matters is their gender. When anyone (especially a woman, who is supposed to be subservient) points this out, it threatens the overblown value the man has placed upon his existence. It's really quite amusing."
Cute trick, but the problem is the natural response of men and women in stressful situations. To deny that is to bury your head in the sand and deny basic human physiology and psychology.
1) They have sex.
2) There is sexual tension, and jealousy.
3) The chivalry instinct - men will tend to protect the woman instead of the unit.
"
Look who's illiterate. In reply to my husband's claim that he led a patrol of female soldiers into the DMZ, you said"
You sure like to twist words.
I made a clear point using colloquialism.
You failed to grasp the plainly stated main issue of a completely different post, #65 by John Lenin
"Please Barb drop your feminist machinations, you don't put males and females together in any type of combat situations. It's like telling a group of teenagers the nukes are on their way do as you please. Women have served the military well as WACS and WAVES, combat positions is no place to mix the sexes."
Please try to pay more attention next time, mmkay?
My agenda is to support our troops. I'm appalled at the way the liberals are exploiting the situation to convince the public that our troops should not be serving us. And I'm appalled at the self-proclaimed conservatives who are agreeing with them in so far as the female soldiers are concerned. You conveniently overlook the fact that there men involved. If every female soldier is to be punished for the acts of one female soldier, shouldn't the same be true for the men? One isolated incident does erase a long history of facts, except in the minds of those who have an agenda to fulfill.
ROFLMAO!!!!! That is rich!
You made no connection to post #65. You're trying to make a connection now, but it's not working. You said what you said. If you've changed your mind, just say so. Don't make things up.
I doubt if it was she that made the female prisoners pull up their blouses....
mostly, please don't disparage all women who are in the military.....
my mom turns 80 tomorrow....she was in WW2 working as a nurse for the Navy.....
hate to think where the military would be without women like her......
just how the heck did that happen....gee, I wonder.......
couldn't have been a man involved, I'm sure...
So would I. And I commend her for her service.
please don't disparage all women who are in the military.....
I didn't. I disparaged so-called men who would allow women to serve in combat roles or in combat zones. Big difference.
You've never served.
Because I'll tell you this, women are the BEST intelligence agents in the world. Bar none. I don't care how good a male intelligence agent is, or how much training they get, a female intelligence agent will be better.
I don't know why, but women listen better, they are better at picking up non-verbal communication.
They are good at a lot of other wartime tasks. Mixed gender combat divisions, or mixed gender foward area commands don't work. I can give you mountains of proof.
Combat and forward area deployments are stressful situations already, in war or peace. You add women to the mix, or men for that matter, and you at least double it.
All female ships, all female platoons, brigades, divisions - that would be a fair thing to ask of either gender.
Armies and Navies are built for one very serious purpose - one so serious that it should be a very deliberate process you go through when you decide to make a change for something such as 'social and/or gender equity'.
A mixed black and white army was a very similar situation. There were very real military reasons why a general would not want to start with the military in terms of racial equality. Fact is all black platoons, brigades, regements were formed. Blacks were thought not qualified for flight status, but the Tuskegee airmen, placed in an all black fighter wing, proved they did a BETTER job than white male pilots.
I have yet to see that tried with all female divisions, ships, SEAL teams. I think it should happen, but it hasn't. Until it does, I'll go by the EXPERIENCE I've earned. The benefits that females bring to a operational command aren't outweighed by the challenges they pose, and all that does is hurt women and degrade the unit.
One of my classmates was top of our class and selected for the astronaut program. You don't have to sit there and tell me that they aren't necessarily up to the job. I'm simply telling you that they STILL have never been afforded the opportunity to prove it definitively.
Case in point: there is only one female admiral in the USCG. She's never had a tour afloat.
Now, I don't a thing about her beside this one fact. I don't think that there is another admiral in the CG that hasn't had an operational tour, either in the air or at sea.
At the academy, they tell you unequivocally that you need to have your ticket punched in a variety of commands to make flag rank. A mix of operational and shore commands (although, unbelievably, that's changing).
Why make the one exception, and when you do, why make it a female? Why not make it a white male, black male, hispanic male, male primate, anything but a female to make that exception?
Why NOT form an all female SEAL team? Why must it be mixed gender, or nothing at all?
The Masschusetts 54th in the Civil war proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that blacks could be as good, if not better, infantry than whites. With the exception of their CO, they were all black. If they won, there was no questions, no lingering doubts. Other white soldiers in other units, going into a battle, whether they hated blacks or not, preferred having the 54th fight along side because when it came to life and death, all that mattered was their effectiveness in battle.
Do you know that they are talking about sterilizing astronauts for the Mars mission?
Why do that when you can send an all female crew? After all, you are going to be in a can for 3 years - why add sexual tension to the list?
If you're the captain, it really doesn't matter who was involved.
All you know is that the REFTRA that you trained for goes out the window. Any kind of personal qualifications that female earned in her training there - qualifications you were counting on at sea and in the duty rotation - they're gone.
Maybe you don't get a replacement. Maybe the replacement is less qualified. Maybe the replacement is male, and you don't have a bunk for them, except in female berthing, which won't do.
As captain, you don't care, except that during the cruise it's as if 17 people were injured and had to be medevac'd off.
Make it an all female ship. Now the captain only has one type of berthing, and one set of heads, and more room for fuel, torpedoes, gym equipment, pizza makings, replacement parts, or anything else that comes in handy on a nine month deployment.
Females are always going to be the issue in a male dominated armed force with mixed gender operational units. Solution: all female units. If one fine day there are more female units than male ones, then you reach social equality in national defense. No job would be off limits to a female - none. Just don't mix the two. You don't get twice the headaches, you get something on the order of 5 or 6 times the headaches. Any honest female CO will tell you the same thing I just did. Put boys and girls in a floating prison with little to do for nine months, and thoughts will turn to the obvious.
It's part of the thread! Keep following it up.
John Kerry has, and he thinks that gives him the right to say anything negative he wants to about our troops, while claiming to support them. Apparently, he's not the only one who thinks that way. I'm an Army wife and a Navy Mom. Most of my family have served in the military. Some of them, including my husband, have been career soldiers. I don't think this qualifies me to verbally attack our military, and I don't do that. I think it's deplorable that some think my lack of service disqualifies me from supporting our troops, and means I should be required to agree with their attacks on our military, which are attacks on my family. I fail to see the logic behind that, but what the heck, I'm just a civilian.
You bring up some interesting points about how blacks were gradually integrated into the military, due to the level of bigotry that existed at the time. Once they proved themselves, the bigotry subsided to a level that allowed full integration. Women were not integrated in the same way, and are still not fully integrated. This, and a PR campaign to hold all female soldiers responsible whenever one screws up, are probably two of the biggest reasons there are still people who believe all women are unfit for service, and as such, are not to be supported.
LOL - Glad to see I changed your mind, even if you won't admit it. Have a good night.
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.