[Ciexyz]

The social reformers are determined to push a woman's right to advance in the army, over her safety. A major avenue to advancement in the military is combat service. Therefore, according to NOW's logic, women must be permitted to serve in combat.

And they want them on the front lines, not in rear line support positions.

I don't think it's wise myself, and I hope we don't have more horrible stories come out of this war like we did in the '91 conflict.

[LisaAnne]

I haven't made up my mind about women in combat. Certainly I would not be good choice for that job. But, I have known some women that could do it and do it well.

I think that some of the arugments have to do with how we as a culture have viewed and view women in our society. If you check the link I posted early you will read some very convincing arguments on both sides of the issue.

I personally don't think it's a good idea to debate this issue on this thread, I find it disrespectful to the woman who may have lost her life serving our country. That's my humble opinion.

[bonesmccoy]

wasn't Bill Clinton the idiot who put American women in the position that this brave young woman was in?

[Under the Radar]

You know, the same people who are pushing to see women serve in combat wouldn't treat their livestock or pets this way. Ask any breeder whether they will endanger the lives of their females over their males and they will laugh at you. It is so very sad that we have less interest in the future of our people than we do in the animals in our lives. One of the biggest problems that Americans face is self-loathing, which is exemplified by the contempt with which we regard the mothers and future mothers in our society.