Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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."
1 posted on 04/01/2005 10:02:45 AM PST by hinterlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: hinterlander

Chicken droppings.


2 posted on 04/01/2005 10:07:35 AM PST by caisson71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: hinterlander

'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".


3 posted on 04/01/2005 10:09:01 AM PST by L98Fiero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: hinterlander

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.


4 posted on 04/01/2005 10:11:38 AM PST by bannedfromdu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: hinterlander
"No Women In Combat"

Makes perfect sense to me.

6 posted on 04/01/2005 10:13:43 AM PST by smoothsailing (Qui Nhon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: hinterlander

Donnelly is a cow.


10 posted on 04/01/2005 10:32:40 AM PST by verity (A mindset is a terrible thing to waste.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: hinterlander

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.


12 posted on 04/01/2005 10:40:46 AM PST by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: hinterlander
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

16 posted on 04/01/2005 10:52:32 AM PST by cookcounty (If it tortured your mother, would you want be starved to death? 70% say "yes." --CNN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Indy Pendance
Indy:

You need to talk to these folks.

27 posted on 04/01/2005 11:09:12 AM PST by verity (A mindset is a terrible thing to waste.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: hinterlander

How much is this due to the Army having to shift resources to meet all its commitments?


30 posted on 04/01/2005 11:17:04 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: hinterlander

First the made women MPs and then they changed the mission of the MPs to MOUT combat...

Voila women in combat...

YOu wanna see women in combat pick up this months DAV magazine


107 posted on 04/01/2005 8:53:23 PM PST by joesnuffy (The generation that survived the depression and won WW2 proved poverty does not cause crime)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: hinterlander

I'd like to see the statistics on female pregnancy before deployments.

What about failed family care plans for left behind children?

Females that get pregnant while deployed?

Females that get sick while deployed (Bladder/Kidney infections-very common) vs. their male counter parts?

I'd like to see a proud US female "TELL" an Arab how and what to do. It works so well (sarcasm).

What's the retention rate for females vs. males? When females get kids or just marry they tend to eject from the service.

Nice that we are fair and have quotas for promotion.

Rape? Oh, just a made up thing right? Tell that to the thousands of Bosnian women that were raped in camps in the Balkans in the late 90s.

The costs of retrofitting equipment.

The dummying down of training.

The double standards created so that females can compete physically (Look at an Army PT test score card).

The fact that many females get waivers and really can’t make the cut, but we take them anyway so that our “quota-now called GOAL” is met. Many female aviators are to small and hence can’t reach all controls or don’t have full control of them……..

The issues that arise from having 12 females and 130 men living together for 15 months cut off from the world. And these soldiers are around 20 years old!

OMG- There are SO SO many reasons why females should NOT me in combat arms. We are forcing the issue and MAKING it work. Just like the communists this is an ideological belief and issue we force, even if dysfunctional. We do what we always do. Throw money at it and deny all the facts. We’ll just apply more pressure to squeeze the square peg in the round hole.

Surly our Army PAOs and press offices will not release anything that indicates that already today in the limited roles females are used we serious problems. No- this would not look good. So while the Corps and Division surgeons do collect all the data points, none of this FACTUAL empirical and damming information will voluntarily be released.

Red6


118 posted on 04/02/2005 4:11:13 AM PST by Red6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson