Nice to see there’s at least one candidate that doesn’t look at women as cannon fodder...
Here we go how dare he link women to emotions. /s
Don’t you know women are cold hard killing machines just like any man in fact more so? Stronger too. And having them around men in some wasteland far from civilization raises no tensions. /s/s
Oh, I forgot. Santorum was never in the military. Another empty suit.
No way women should be in combat! It’s stupid beyond a doubt!
Since when has this election been about all this moral/emotional mumbojumbo?
Lets get back to the crux of this debate, socialism vs capitalism.
Soup lines Vs Jobs
Prosperity Vs crushing debt
Home brew cheap energy Vs High cost Energy alliances with enemys.
Tailgunner Joe, the Rachael Maddow fan, posts another hit piece with a negative spin on legitimate conservative comments.
Some of us remember how Newt stepped in it, when he pronounced women would get infections in the trench on a monthly basis.
So you peddle Romney AstroTurf here ????
Romney bot ???
Are you a DU troll too ??
The real issue here is that of physical strength; which is an important factor directly related to survival in a combat environment. Of course, it is possible strength will not be required due to the advent of modern equipment/weaponry; however, when things go wrong or equipment breaks down; physical strength can mean the difference between success and failure ...or even life and death.
Of course the real reason for all this is to allow more females to be able to document some sort of combat experience; thus “getting their tickets punched” and giving them greater potential for promotion.
I have two very good friends currently in the serving in the U.S. Army, in different units and locations. Both are combat vets with time in Iraq and Afghanistan. One’s a staff sergeant, and the other is a 2nd Lieutenant, and both have told me the same thing-—that the women in their respective units are just about useless for combat-related training and missions. They say that most are just in the service to have a good time and to find a husband.
My great-grandmother, amusingly enough, used to use a similar argument as to why women shouldn’t be allowed to vote. Excluding herself, of course.
But the thing is, women ARE ALREADY serving in combat rolls, against the law, as I understand it. Books are already on the bookstore shelves written by women who have served in combat or combat-like rolls in the Gulf conflict. Female chopper pilots are already missing legs from combat missions.
Who's kidding who here?!
When my sons registered for selective service, they wrote letters to all of their elected representatives, as well as to the Department of Defense, and a copy went along to Selective Service, conscientiously objecting to serving with sodomites, females in combat, females in co-ed dormitories or barracks, wearing UNO blue, and having their personal Christian witness squelched while in service.
No, my sons did not conscientiously object to bearing arms and fighting in defense of the nation. They conscientiously objected to serving with known sodomites, females in combat (or combat-like roles), wearing a uniform or insignia other than USA uniforms and insignia (e.g. UNO blue), or serving where they are told that they may not personally and openly witness for their Saviour.
One of their points is : Imagine serving in a military in which one can openly be a sodomite, but not openly profess one's faith in Jesus Christ.
Dear Rick,
The liberal media will keep on leading you down certain paths so that they can destroy you later with out-of-context quotes for their ads.
DON’T LET THEM DO IT!
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