Posted on 12/26/2006 9:09:21 AM PST by kingattax
??? Are they serious. Of course there are more service women killed, THEY ARE ALLOWED IN COMBAT NOW. Stupid article of the month.
Women's lib takes its toll.
I have long wondered what the American public would think as our women died along with men in wars. I have very mixed feelings. First, as a mother of sons, I know I would be as devestated by the loss of a son as I would by the loss of a daughter. On the other hand, the old fogey in me does not think women belong in the military in capacities like they are now.
Of course, I also worry that this will be used to further turn Americans against armed conflict in general.
God bless every family of every service member who is in harm's way, or who has died serving his or her country.
susie
So violence against men by exposing them to combat is OK, but not violence against women by the same definition?
The military isn't the girls scouts .. women will die in combat just as men do in a time of war
Actually a good article, if one were to read past the first line. Women still cannot be assigned to combat units but do serve in combat support units. And since the war against the insurgents is a 360 degree war, no one is safe from IED's.
Oh, how silly!
bump
I was one of the first instructors to take women pilots entering Air Force pilot training. They were really good sticks. One of my students went on to become a "aggressor" pilot at the fighter training school at Nellis. She soon earned a reputation with the students. If you drew her as an aggressor, you were dead.
Deaths of men should be as troubling as deaths of women.
So the NOW nags and their ilk have screamed, tantrumed and hollered that women be alowed in combat zones because "it's only fair,"....only to discover and crab about the fact that their dangerous and encourage violence towards women, and "that's not fair!"<>Oy. Cognitive dissonance.
exposure of women to combat violence in war is tantamount to acceptance of violence against women in general."
If women do not want to be killed in combat, they should not join the military, when a male gets killed no one says this is "violence against men". War is Hell, for all envolved.
This reminds me again that women are supposed to be equal to men in every way, unless they don't like it. Then they are supposed to be treated like children. OK. Thanks for that message, feminism.
But was is 'troubling' about it? Even if they are officially in combat units, they are still on the front line in support roles. I am actually shocked there were only 70 women killed out of the some 3000 deaths. If women are going to play active roles in a war, some are going to be killed. That is the price to pay when you ask for more equality.
That's not PART of the problem, it IS the problem. Thanks alot, Bill.
We have been forced to accept soldiers who are not the best for the sake of political correctness. It was easy to do because women jumped off their pedestals when they embraced abortion. Once real war comes to our shores, there will be a 180 degree change and a return to common sense.
"...war against the insurgents is a 360 degree war, no one is safe "from IED's.
Exactly.
The Dinosour media, most Americans and politicians still choose to believe that there is some sort of trench warfare, front line vs rear area warfare in today's world-wide conflicts.
I think that beginning with the Vietnam War there was no such thing as front or rear areas. The TET offensive showed that country-wide enemey attacks on our military where going to be the rule from then on, leaving no bases secure.
Call me a chauvinist if you like, but I see no reason why my wife or daughters should (conceivably) be called away to fight for me. The very idea is is offesnive. I am supposed to fight for them.
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.