Posted on 02/09/2012 8:25:12 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
Rick Santorum, in an interview with CNN's John King a bit ago, was asked whether he thinks it's a good idea or a bad idea for the Pentagon to relax some of the rules about women taking frontline roles in combat, "perhaps opening the door to a broader role for, ultimately, women in combat."
His answer was both praising of women serving the country, and as a part of the armed services, but he went on to explain why he would take issue with women on the front lines.
"Look, I want to create every opportunity for women to be able to serve this country, and they do so in an amazing and wonderful way. They're a great addition to the - and have been for a long time - to the armed services of our country," Santorum said. "But I do have concerns about women in frontline combat."
He added, "I think that can be a very compromising situation, where people naturally may do things that may not be in the interests of the mission because of other types of emotions that are involved. And I think that's probably - you know, it already happens, of course, with the camaraderie of men in combat. But I think it would be even more unique if women were in combat. I think that's probably not in the best interests of men, women or the mission."
It's not clear exactly what Santorum meant by "other types of emotions that are involved" for women who would be serving in frontline situations. I've emailed a spokesman for a clarification, but haven't heard back yet.
And little do you know that if Santorum does not learn to keep his mouth shut, the MSM and Obama will have a whole lot more material, without having to dig for a single gaff or soundbite to use against him. He has already given them several months worth of material, free of charge.
RE: Dude, we’re not talking about the NBA or skills in sports, we are talking about serving in our Military.
Dude, I KNOW THAT. I am just using the NBA to illustrate a point — Santorum is NOT OPPOSED to Women in the military who can do the job as well or better than men can.
For me, I’d rather have XENA the Warrior Princess in the forntline of combat than any ordinary man out there. Do you think Santorum is so dumb and bigoted that he doesn’t know that?
Expressing a concern does not mean he is going to BAN something. I KNOW BECAUSE I HEARD HIM SAY IT WHEN HE WAS A RADIO TALK SHOW HOST.
If people cannot see the difference, then they get everything they deserve — including Obama for President.
The burden of proof does not lie with me. The record speaks for itself and is already written.
Your problem is, you require that I post material to back up what I am saying, when you can’t deliver even one case the back up yours. But I certainly can.
(From this article)
http://www.cdi.org/issues/women/combat.html
More than 40,000 American women served in the war against Iraq.
The Marine Corps awarded twenty-three women the Combat Action Ribbon for service in the Persian Gulf War because they were engaged by Iraqi troops.
Desert Storm was a huge turning point for women, much like Vietnam was for African-Americans, and it showed that modern war boundaries between combat and non-combat zones are being blurred. It makes no sense to cling to semantics (combat vs combat support) given the reality of war.
Furthermore, allowing both men and women to compete for all military occupational specialties is not an equal rights issue, but one of military effectiveness. If the United States is to remain the world’s most capable and most powerful military power, we need to have the best person in each job, regardless of their gender.
So supporting women in the navy is the same as supporting homo’s in the navy? You are willing to draw that equivalence? OK.
Well, you seem pretty upset that I had the nerve to disagree with you. Is everyone that disagrees with you a lefty?
Well, I guess I will just have to learn to live with your disapproval.
Perhaps we can ignore each other - I didn’t come here to involve myself with school yard insult fights.
There has been an hysterical attack on traditional sex roles over the past half century--far more emotional, even, than that stirred earlier by the suffragettes; as there the issue was basically whether or not women should vote.
The modern Feminist attack on traditional sex roles goes far deeper. It is part of a broader attack on any recognition of human differences, as well as a broader attack on sexuality, in the traditional sense, which includes, for example, the contemporary demand on the Left for mock marriages between people of the same sex.
The traditional military ethos in the West & I believe in some other civilized societies, embraced chivalric values; the duty of able bodied men to protect women & children. The reciprocal duty on the part of the women, being protected, was to manage the hearth--to preserve something worth returning to for the men, while nurturing the coming generation. Under that ethos, both boys & girls learned by observing their mother's devotion to family, the joy in doing for those one loved--a realization enriching their lives.
The Clintons both over this issue & that of homosexuals in the military, abused the power of the Executive branch by substituting an asexual agenda for pure considerations of military effectiveness. It was for this, rather than a trivial situation with an intern, for which Clinton should have been impeached. Trashing the chivalric concept did far greater damage to our social fabric than soiling Monica's blue dress (not sure if that was the color).
But I just scratch the surface! For more detailed comment on sex roles vs. egalitarian lunacy: Feminist Delusion.
William Flax
Care to show me where I supported fags in the navy?
I don’t ignore leftist junk posted on FR, especailly when posted by a leftist retread troll.
That's the next thing to find out.
No, you implied that in error in your own mind. They are not implied in my words.
The US Military never was an institution of religion . . . but now it is one playground of the degenerate and filthy.
It’s been a pleasure talking to you gentlemen - see you around.
Sorry - if you are not a gentleman, I apologize.
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.