Another argument against women in the military

[Garegaupa]

I've been reading many interesting discussions concerning women in the military on these boards, but there is one subject that has been little mentioned. I'd like to get some comments on that.

Just so that's clear: I'm against women in the military (in combat positions, at least, but I suppose most positions in the military will become combat positions during a conflict). I agree what has been said about women lacking the necessary physical strength and endurance, being more prone to injuries, disrupting unit cohesion, not being mentally suited for combat and so on.

But, many people say, if a woman can perform as well as a man, shouldn't she then be allowed to serve where she pleases. I still say no. And now we're getting to the point of this post:

I am (both as a Christian and as a man) thoroughly convinced that men should protect and cherish women, and that any man who would willingly send a woman to fight in his stead is a criminal.

Since this view (as far as I can see) hasn't come up too often in the debate over whether women should serve in the military or not, I'm starting to wonder if I'm the only person left on the planet who thinks this is a good principle. Ladies and gentlemen, what are your opinions on this matter?

Best regards, Garegaupa

[PatrioticAmerican]

Let women go. We don't fight wars anyway. It doesn't take a man to be in the Army these days; what, with passing out meals and playing world-cop, as we do. Since 1945, we don't know what war is. We refuse to declare it, and we won't fight like we intend to win. We fight like we don't want to make the enemy upset at us. For these world group-hugs, send the women. Real men prefer to fight.

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

"It doesn't take a man to be in the Army these days;
what, with passing out meals and playing world-cop, as we do."

Why do you insult those who gave their lives defending you since 9/11?
FYI There are many active duty FReepers and active duty lurkers on Free Republic.
You owe them an apology.

[Jeff Gordon]

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary.

Try "onomonopia."

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

"Since 1945, we don't know what war is."

sneakypete, you want to educate this person on what war is.

[mamelukesabre]

For now, I won't get into the argument of women in combat. But I'll say this much. I sure wouldn't date any women that are cops or firefighters or soldiers. There are certain qualities that one looks for in the opposite sex, and any women that is a soldier or cop, etc, is certainly LACKING in the qualities that I seek. And for this reason, If I had a daughter, I would greatly discourage her from persuing such a course in life. It's hard enough to find a suitable mate without intentionally destroying the attractive qualities that you do possess.

For chrissakes, ladies, use a little common sense.

[PatrioticAmerican]

People who want to hamstring soldiers with social experiments are the ones who owe the apology.

You brought up 9/11, well, the real defense of 9/11 should have been the billions we spend each year to the FBI, INS, CIA, NSA, et al, who failed to recognize and prevent a very noticable sequence of terrorist events. They should be the ones to give the apology. Hell, the INS even sent the little bastards a letter of approval to be here after the 9/11!

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

You are entitled to your opinion(s) about the way the government is run.
That does not give you the right to make snide remarks about those in the military.

[sneakypete]

sneakypete, you want to educate this person on what war is.

I THINK he is using the collective "we",as in the general population of the country. If so,he is right about this. Nobody is really stupid enough to say individuals within the military haven't experienced "real war".

BTW,if I'm wrong,I hope he will correct me.

[cva66snipe]

I see PatrioticAmericans post not as a criticism of those who serve but as those who make decessions on policy. There is a difference. Namely the congresss and POTUS that have since 1945 avoided the declaration of war and tied the hands of those we asked to fight in wars since that time with political based limitations. The leadership fought wars without the expressed intention of victory and solving the initial problems. That was true in Korea, Nam, and the Gulf War. None of these wars were declared by congress and congress and POTUS treated them as police actions rather than wars.

Did we not hear the words Korean conclict the Vietnam Conflict, Operation Desert Storm? Some use the term war the PC crowd prefers conflict. Not declaring war by congress shows a distinct lack of resolve in the nations leadership. They indeed are in need or criticism for this. Those who fought were owed the declaration. Those who were sent to wars that Washington had no intentions of fighting for unconditional victories are indeed owed an apology for our leaders failure to operate under a constitutional and moral manner.

I'm not anti-war but I do firmly believve that if the leaders of this nation send men into combat they should at least have the moral conviction to support them and let them finish their job. If victory is not the goal then we should not go. Such has been the state of our wars since 1945 in Washington DC. You can't blame the fighters on the acts of tyranny committed by our leaders.

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

"Like I said I don't always catch things as posted so would you mind pointing out to me the snide remarks Patriotic American posted?"

This is exactly what he said.

"It doesn't take a man to be in the Army these days; what, with passing out meals and playing world-cop, as we do."

[cva66snipe]

"It doesn't take a man to be in the Army these days; what, with passing out meals and playing world-cop, as we do."

That is due to orders from where? A far cry from a soldiers trained purpose & mission is it not? They are not to be trained as the Peace Corps and diplomats they are to be trained to fight and kill. It's not an insult upon those who serve as I see it it is a testimony to the abuses the leaders have placed upon them. We can not continue on that present course and maintain our national defense. We are far to overextended on these so called police and baby sitting missions. Name me one that has an exit time planned? The very nation and people they are feeding and building may be the ones who they fight tomorrow.

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

"A far cry from a soldiers trained purpose & mission is it not?"

Go tell that to the families of the ones who have died since 9/11.

[wardaddy]

Good thing you tucked tail and scurried off the deck Jeffy. You were in way over your head. Hurts when you get caught lying or embellishing on this forum doesn't it? You got busted hard buddy. LOL.....but you asked for it.

I myself...I'm careful arguing war with formal warriors....it's a damn tar pit ain't it?

[cva66snipe]

Go tell that to the families of the ones who have died since 9/11.

Or the ones who died in the Korean. Nam, or Gulf War where POTUS & congress had no intentions of the needed victory? I am talking about the military as it should be not the military that PC has made it to be. You it seems can not distingush between critism of leaders and support of troops. I support our troops. I call into question their civilian leadership. Get it now? Truman was wrong in Korea, as Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, and Ford in Nam, and Bush SR in the Gulf War. All were wars that politicans never intended to be won. That any way you slice it is wrong. Those who fought are due an apology from our government for it's lack of committment and support to them.

It is very wrong to ask someone to die for this nation in a war politicans have no desire to win. If that offends you I will not apoligize for the statement. I support our troops but not pathetic gutless politicans who's policies shed their blood for wars not meant to be won. Either fight it will full vengance or don't fight it at all. We abandoned that principle at Korea and we have yet to solve anything since without it.

[wardaddy]

As much as I agree with the gist of your sentiments, I fear that the damn world is so complicated at times that we do not always have the freedom of waging total war. WWII was a case of survival and clearly defined goals and enemy and yes to a degree we waged war on the civilians as well in order to achieve unconditional surrender. All these little insurgency conflicts and terrorist enclaves which threaten our interests and citizens but not our immediate survival do not grant us the same leeway. I wish it were not so. I do agree that once an objective is defined, we should utilize whatever means necessary to achieve it so that not one American life is lost in vain. And stay the course. Vietnam....in a roundabout way...we did win that war strategically. It stopped communist hegemony in the Pacific Rim and gave some of the fledgling nations time to build and it was perhaps the initial nail in the coffin of the old USSR if only because it served as a major distraction for them. I'm not sure but from the long view, I think we at least stymied a soon to be dying ideology who's stated purpose was to bring about our demise. I know that's not much comfort to the Vietnamese or Cambodians or Laotians....not to mention our own soldiers dead and surviving. They did a hell of a job in the hardest conditions perhaps that the US military has ever fought and the Communist juggernaut in that part of the world went no further. It was certainly not a defeat form a strategic long view....IMHO.