Replies

I think liberals tread on very dangerous ground here.

I'd say that this is an excellent reason why:

a) women should not be serving on the front line (in country)

b) perhaps women should not be serving in the military at all.

My experience in the USCG with putting women on Icebreakers on 6 month deployments: All but 6 came back preggers, and there were more than the average number of divorce lawyers on the pier.

I haven't heard anything about whether some of the nitwits who banged England were married.

Yes, liberals are treading on thin ice when they use that same line of reasoning to claim that this is proof we shouldn't be in Iraq. They fail to admit that the majority of our troops, male and female, are honorable. They claim to support our troops, but then they use the rare occurrance of impropriety to paint all of our troops as war criminals, or all of our female troops as unfit for service. And then there are those with a 7th-century mindset, who think women are unfit for anything except serving men in whatever capacity the men dictate. 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. Men who actually accomplish something in life, don't have to live vicariously through other men's deeds, and rarely if ever resort to denying the accomplishments of others. When a man like that says he supports our troops, he doesn't mean just the white troops, or just the male troops. He means he supports our troops. There's more to being a good soldier than just being born with certain genitalia, or a certain skin color. Our troops do not accomplish their missions by sitting around admiring what the Good Lord blessed them with at birth. There's more to it than that. To suggest otherwise is an insult to all of our troops, and is no more supportive of our troops than any other means of undermining their mission.