U.S. Army Defies Bush

Human Events Online ^ | April 1, 2005 | Elaine Donnelly

[hinterlander]

Here's the part that really gets me:

"Why is this happening? More than one general has told me that the objective is to "grow" the careers of female officers, including their own daughters. This is careerist groupthink, which cannot justify incremental changes that will force the majority of enlisted women and men to pay the ultimate price."

[caisson71]

Chicken droppings.

[L98Fiero]

'During an interview with the Washington Times in January, Bush declared, "No women in [land] combat."'

I wonder if he made the little brackets with his fingers when he said "land".

[bannedfromdu]

You guys need to come into the 21st century. It's a high tech battlefield, women are just as capable as men.

This crap about needing a man to carry someone off the battlefield is complete silliness. Women are more calculating, can endure considerably more pain,and have little mercy.

[spetznaz]

Yep. The stinky kind.

[smoothsailing]

"No Women In Combat"

Makes perfect sense to me.

[Mulch]

Does the name Brian Nichols mean anything to you?

[ladtx]

[Redcloak]

It isn't the capabilities of the women that's the problem. The men are the problem. As appalling as modern feminists will find this, men become overly protective of "their" women. They will not leave a female comrade behind to risk being captured and abused. Nor can they stand the thought of one being injured or killed. While basic human decency is the motivation for this attitude, it ultimately puts the mission at risk.

[verity]

Donnelly is a cow.

[Allosaurs_r_us]

"Women are more calculating, can endure considerably more pain,and have little mercy."

 

Yep, I pity the fool that underestimates my wife or my daughter. The youngest out-shoots her husband. LOL

[Tailgunner Joe]

Outrageous. Feminist affirmative action in the military. Job security is more important to these people than National Security. They think the military is their own private labor union.

[beezdotcom]

It isn't the capabilities of the women that's the problem.

While I agree with the rest of your sociological premise, the "capabilities of the women" issue HAS, in fact, exacerbated the problem. If the standards had just been kept the same, and declared that any women who still met them could be in combat, that would be more acceptable. The lowering of physical standards to allow more people (men OR women) to participate in combat can't really be a good thing.

[Pukin Dog]

Donnelly is a cow.

Donnelly is a certified HERO to the US Military.

Find a subject to comment on in which you know something. It aint this one.

[dakine]

hahaha...

[cookcounty]

In this kind of asymmetric warfare, the personnel in the FSC's (Forward Support Companies) are in many ways more vulnerable than anyone else. They are very lightly armed and have to operate with few personnel in very exposed situations. Not a place for your daughter.

---Army Vet, Army Dad

[verity]

And what are your credentials?

[Lazamataz]

Women require too much logistical support in terms of makeup and fashionable clothes.

And getting a woman OUT OF THE BATHROOM AND TO A BATTLEFIELD ON TIME is completely impossible.

[kas2591]

Amen.

As for the career agendas of female officer to enlarge opportunities in the military, That's been going on for over 20 years; cause you won't get 4 stars if you haven't been a CINC or VICE CINC, and you can't be that if you aren't combat arms.

[Lazamataz]

And what are your credentials?

I eat Starburst Brand jellybeans, I once was on an ATV, and I know the word 'Judo'.