Posted on 12/18/2004 1:34:07 AM PST by huac
As a matter of fact, my cousin's husband is constantly lamenting that the gals cannot pull their weight as cops, are placed in desk jobs early in their career, and not capable of performing when size and power are needed.
This kind of "I beg your pardon" really has to stop. It is an acknowledgement that you consent to an absurd position of opposition to be taken even though there is not a well-founded basis for the opposition.
This kind of thing encourages the opposition and softens the point one is making---where what is needed is for the opponents to be treated as adults so they can recognize the facts.
You "logic" avoids the facts. Even the above post had the instance of the male who was assigned a female gunner and he had to carry her ammo and tripod. Military field operations require fit young men to do extraordinary things on a regular basis. Having people present who cannot do those things impairs everyone else and puts a strain on everyone else who have to carry those less capable. It is a shamne that people let other considerations blind them to the facts.
I don't mean any personal animosity, but you are really Pi---ing me off this morning. You use such facile arguments to dance around real good factual arguments. I read your profile and figure that you have to be able to do better than this. Your motive must be based elsewhere. Combat now, 5000 years ago, or 5000 years in the future will be the same in that there are no rules in extremis and it is a fight to the death. The point about many men not being physically able to fight in combat and that women cannot meet the minimum male standard, is just something you ignore. [This is not a matter where hurting young women's feelings should matter.] There are facts of combat and physical facts of the difference between men and women. Combat is the extreme and no rules apply in the end. Women only physically "compete" with men when the rules are controlled and that kind of control does not exist in combat when people are trying to kill you in order to avoid being killed.
Yeah, you probably would be disqualified. Can you meet the physical requirements stated above? If you can't, you don't qualify. And I mean the male requirements. The point is that this isn't about who can run for class president. There are real qualifications that should not be played with just to allow women in and damn the consequences. This is what bureaucrats and politicians. They think everything can be played with.
I didn't see it that way; I did expect to get an argument, and this was my way of acknowledging my position would take fire.
There is another name for soldiers who can not "hack" it. They're called casualties.
After reading the entire thread again, I see no valid posts to convince me women belong in close combat, if it can be avoided.
It must be acknowledged, all people who serve in our military will be exposed to situations/dangers not entirely in our control.
A leader must accept the fact, there will be casualties; it ain't a video game, there is no replay button.
One of the responsibilities of military leadership, in times of conflict, is to avoid unnecessary casualties, emphasis on unnecessary. Many reasons for this, but the single biggest reason is, casualties weaken the ability of the unit to accomplish the mission.
Placing individuals in the unit who do not have the physical or mental ability to cope with the requirements of ground combat is just plain stupid.
And while on the subject of your post, please accept my heartfelt wishes that you and all your loved ones have a Very, Very Merry Christmas!
Bill Flax
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.