Fleischer: Rape of POWs 'not worth mentioning'

WorldNetDaily ^ | March 25, 2003 | Les Kinsolving

[William Terrell]

Are you seriously implying that a statement condemning the rape of female soldiers is necessary? Or that not explicitly making such a statement implies that rape of female soldiers is acceptable?

I'm saying that a positive statement should have been given specifically about that issue in point. Politicians routinely give out press statements about issues that everyone would consider not necessary to actually say.

I'm further saying that I think the reason such a statment wasn't given indicates this administration intends to continue with the policy of putting women in combat. And that is where my problem is and most certainly "worth mentioning".

[Corin Stormhands]

If Lester needs to get his jollies, he should go surf the net for porn. This question was irresponsible and tasteless.

Now is not the time.

[discostu]

You keep making statements that the historical record says is wrong. Show one iota of proof that combat units with females lack ferocity.

There will be NFL teams with women linemen. That will be the last step of the phase-in (kickers will be first, then QBs, then receivers) but it's going to happen.

I've never dsaid it's fun, that's one of the insults you keep bandying about. It's difficult to understand why ANYONE would want to be a combat soldier, but people do. Again you make statements without proof. If they've passed the same test as our men, yet aren't fit for combat then clearly our tests are wrong and need to be made tougher.

Yeah Russian female combatants were a complete failure http://halleuropeanhistory.com/index.php/Mode/product/AsinSearch/0968270220/name/Women%2520in%2520War%2520and%2520Resistance%253A%2520Selected%2520Biographies%2520of%2520Soviet%2520Women%2520Soldiers/browse/4918/page/1

Time to get with the program. if they can do it then they should be allowed to do it, and if you don't like it that's too damn bad.

[pepsionice]

Well...if we are going to discuss the topic...do you really think that the Iraqis don't rape men as well? If you review Lawerence of Arabia and various historical documents...this has been the standard policy of Arab dictators. Anybody that surrounders to Arabs...is putting themselves at risk. You might as well fight to the death...because their handling of you as a prisoner will be the most unpleasant experience of your entire life. Given the choice of a POW of Germans, Russians, Japanese or Arabs....Arabs will be the last choice each time.

[skeeter]

As long as you refuse to acknowledge the apparent & obvious differences between men & women, not to mention 5000 years of recorded history, to argue with you is a waste of time.

[Always A Marine]

Oh please, you're going to blame the women for some pinhead in Washington lowering the standards?! How about blaming the idiot that lowered the damned standards.

You are correct; with those pinheads is precisely where the blame lies. But let us not ignore the fact that the standards have been lowered to accomodate women.

If they can pass the tests they have ALREADY PROVEN they can fight.

They have proven nothing. Only fighting proves that one can fight. The Corps doesn't even match women against men with pugil sticks; real combat, with its absence of all male restraint, would prove even more of a massacre.

Why should I ask my father about the PRT when my mother had to pass the exact same thing? How many verses of the hymn did you get out in the teargas room, my mom got out two, the PRT required one, she passed the test.

The Marine Corps did not administer the PRT to females, and if you understood what comprised the test, the reason would be obvious. As for the gas chamber qualification, it is a familiarization test to ensure that everyone knows how to quickly and properly fit and seal his gas mask; the nonlethal CS is used to motivate everyone to pay attention. While Xena was singing the Hymn, a stronger male enemy would be snapping her neck.

As I've said, repeatedly, only to be ignored, I don't want any kind of double standard. Same tests for everybody, and they better be damn tough tests, especially for the Marines.

If the standards were the same -- yet still "damn tough" as you propose, no women would pass, and the issue of women in combat would be a moot point.

WRONG AGAIN. I'm a man. But I'm familiar enough with the region that I know sexual assault isn't reserved for women. And I'm familiar enough with psychology to know that it's equally scarring to both genders.

Then you are a man in a fantasy world. Torture of a male does not have the same impact upon his shipmates as even the threat of torturing a woman. As another poster correctly stated, an assault on a male is an assault on one man, while an assault on a female is an assault on the entire unit. You are fighting the nature of both women and men, and the resulting impact on a unit's cohesiveness and ability to win in battle.

Women don't play in the NFL because it too is living in the past. They're coming. It's not gonna be long. And you'll have to decide which century you live in.

Oh, sure. As long as the NFL is about violence and winning, it will be played by men -- and we're not talking about kickers. To the ultimate extent, war is about winning and nothing else.

As for the strongest women being no better than the weakest men, what a large stinking pile of moronic dog crap. Go say that in the nearest gym. On average women aren't as strong as men, any statement across the board is doomed to idiotic failure. You're wrong, and thank God the American people are learning you're wrong. This isn't about "placing" anybody. This is about allowing those who can achieve to achieve. No double stndards, no lowering of the standards, just aknowledging the simple truth.

Fantasy. It is one thing to be just plain wrong, even to fly in the face of the obvious. I just hope that your misguided theories never have to be proven wrong on the battlefield. It would be an ugly sight, and a needless tragedy.

[discostu]

And as long as you refuse to aknowledge that some women can and are performing just as well in the standardized military tests then you'll be behind the times.

[Sloth]

In the civilian world you don't drag a woman's name through the mud, who has been the victim of rape. The reporters attempt to sensationalize this issue is disgraceful, as is your attempt to wave the bloody shirt.

Wow... for once, you are 100% correct about something.

[skeeter]

And as long as you refuse to aknowledge that some women can and are performing just as well in the standardized military tests then you'll be behind the times.

You mean the "normalized" standard tests.

[discostu]

no, those changes were made because some people are stupid. Some misplaced concept of fairness to women might have been the banner they rallied behind, but I'm not discussing banners, I'm discussing realities. The reality is that we should go back to the high standards, and any one that can meet them should be allowed in combat.

The gas chamber test wasn't about speed of fitting the mask, it was about handling the gas. She didn't sing the hymn for fun, she sang it because that was the test, full deep breaths (which the singing necessitates) in a chamber filled with CS for around 30 seconds. You'll never win an argument by insulting someone's mother, rent a clue and stick to facts.

So we shouldn't even allow them to try because YOU'VE already decideed they'll fail. Gosh what an enlightened individual. sorry you're WRONG AGAIN. Some would pass, some will always pass. Deal.

and now you're changing the subject. It was about the women facing the horrors of combat now you're talking about the shipmates. Stick to the subject.

They're discussing letting women in the NFL RIGHT NOW. They're having to because so many college teams are letting them be kickers. It's coming. I know you wont be man enough to apologize when the NFL proves you horribly worng though.

So you actually think the weakest man can squat 155 kilos http://www.powerlifting.org.au/Wom40.htm So much for the strongest woman being equivalent to the weakest man.

[discostu]

No, as I've repeatedly said, I mean the EXACT SAME test. I know currently we don't do that and I think it's wrong. We didn't used to and hopefully we'll go back to 100% standardized testing.

[Gargantua]

If this scum has to ask questions like this in a time of war, he should apply for a job with Jerry Springer. What a piece of sh**.

[ganesha]

Letting them be kickers shows the inherent dishonesty of the entire project. Basically they are saying that since a woman soccer player can kick a ball and the kicker doesn't get tackled on every play, or even most plays they think they can get away with it. Every so often one of these girls will be crippled but they won't all get crippled right away so they can maintain the illusion of equality. They won't make females linemen because the line has to take the full brutality of the sport on every play. All you are really doing is abolishing the requirement that all of the members of the team be able to sustain the maximum level of violence and injury in order to play the sport. Even if you could give a woman enough steroids to build up the same amount of muscle as a man, you still can't duplicate the male skeleton in a female. This is why female basketball players have a significantly higher risk of knee injuries than male basketball players. It has to do with the angle of the hips which in turn is a result of the female pelvis having to accomodate childbirth.

The military has been doing the same thing which you advocate for football which is to take what have traditionally been combat positions and redefine them as non-combat positions. Restrictions and standards which apply to combat then no longer apply to those positions. The problem is calling it a non combat position doesn't make it a non combat position when a war actually happens. Nobody is denying that your Mom is a tough lady but saying that there is no physical difference between males and females and then staking peoples lives on that is dishonest.

[Semaphore Heathcliffe]

A combat unit which includes women lacks the focused ferocity which can only exist with equals who can be counted on to pull their own weight.

Spent some years (working ;) ) at a psych hospital where there was no shortage of danger and what amounted to hand-to-hand combat (coordinated take-downs of violent people). Just because the hospital didn't call it fighting didn't mean it wasn't. Get a call from a unit that all available males are needed. Everyone hauls ass over there; if they've managed to get the guy (usually) into a soft room, he's in there screaming like a banshee, sometimes naked, out of his mind with rage, trying his damndest to tear down the building. Everyone calmly divvies up assignments as to who grabs what, who's got a towl on his forehead so he can't get his teeth into anyone, etc...

Even as the assignments go out, your pupils are dilating, your pulse is accelerating, mouth gets coppery, feel like your made of coiled spring. This uncontrollable transformation is as old a man himself. It's about getting ready to do battle with something or someone. A well-trained and veteran group of guys could execute the take-down flawlessly (no harm to the patient), but almost never without one of them getting banged up, bruised, cut, whatever.

If the situation was escalating too rapidly for enough guys to gather, or there were just too few guys scheduled that night, then there'd be female workers joining in, maybe even some nurses. The difference in the two types of crews (all male versus mixed) was immediately recognizable and undeniable. An all-male crew will function with a focus and controlled ferocity that is utterly impossible with women on board. Women mean guys are worried the women will get hurt, even if the woman in question is the biggest, toughtest dyke nurse on the grounds. This is a distraction. Women mean one or all of the guys is uncontrollably sexually "aware" of the woman. This is a distraction. And that big, tough dyke (who has by now earned my eternal, unabashed RESPECT for doing what she does day after day) is never a match for a man as relates to ability to bring strength and (again) ferocity to the situation. It's not even close.

I'm not military and never will be at this age, but my opinion based on life experience is it's absolute madness to put women in situations where they will (with rare exception) dilute the destructive capabilities of fighting forces. I fully recognize that many women can perform the duties required of a combat soldier; the issue isn't "Can they do it?" The issue is: is their presence, as it relates to the majority male fighting force, a dilution of the destructive capabilities of the force. Surely it is.

[Semaphore Heathcliffe]

I should say, I assume many women can perform duties required by ground combat.

[Semaphore Heathcliffe]

my two cents

[discostu]

They're letting them be kickers because that's the girls currently pushing to get in. And they've got the easy arguement to make, if you can consistently put it through the uprights from 40 yards out then you can be a kicker. Since kickers rarely get hit they're just avoiding arguments. But once female kickers are well entrenched it will spread. And of course anybody that's watched Martin Gramatica jump into teammates' arms (and twist his ankle on the turf, those Gramatica boys are just too excitable) has a hard time defending the fine manly tradition of kicking fieldgoals. As for whether or not there are women that can make linemen while I'll admit that it will be a low percentage, but anybody who's seen the footage out of Sturgis knows there are some 200+ pound women that are plenty tough. Let's also not forget that the Broncos had the smallest offensive line in the league for 3 years and blocked for 3 consecutive different 1000 yard rushers, it's not all about size.

That's not what I'm advocating for the NFL or the military. Actualy it's exactly the opposite of what I'm advocating. What i'm advocating is letting those that can live up to the standards do the jobs for which they are qualified. I haven't said there's no physical difference, what I've said is that while the AVERAGES are different some women CAN pass the tests and we should let them do the job. I have no doubt that a lower percentage of women would be able to meet the requirements than men, and I have no problem with that and don't feel the requirements should be changed to make it easier. I just think that barring those that can meet the requirements from doing the duty is not how you bould the strongest possible military.

[Always A Marine]

The gas chamber test wasn't about speed of fitting the mask, it was about handling the gas. She didn't sing the hymn for fun, she sang it because that was the test, full deep breaths (which the singing necessitates) in a chamber filled with CS for around 30 seconds...

Beg your pardon, but you're spouting this BS to an infantry officer who has led units through combat training evolutions many times, and through combat once -- so I might have a clue about the purpose of that training. Let's not confuse a training aid with with the real thing.

We don't wear protective gear to survive enemy use of nonlethal gas, so the purchase of the gas chamber is not to prove that you can "handle" the CS gas. The purpose of the nuisance gas is to add emphasis and realism to the training, and to instill trust in the proper use of the protective gear. Rest assured that when that gear has to be used in combat, it will be because the enemy employs a deadly substance which no unmasked person can "handle."

...now you're changing the subject. It was about the women facing the horrors of combat now you're talking about the shipmates. Stick to the subject.

It was you who asked about the effect of women upon unit cohesion. Human nature and unit cohesion are inextricably related, and it is apparent that you understand neither.

They're discussing letting women in the NFL RIGHT NOW. They're having to because so many college teams are letting them be kickers. It's coming. I know you wont be man enough to apologize when the NFL proves you horribly worng though.

Yeah. Right.

So you actually think the weakest man can squat 155 kilos... So much for the strongest woman being equivalent to the weakest man.

Policy isn't made on account of freakish examples of either sex. You still have the mistaken impression that fitness for combat can be determined in a series of tests, and that a handful of geeked-up amazons are therefore qualified as warriors. If you ever witnessed two men fight to the death (or if you were ever one of them), the level of sheer brutality would erase all of your grand illusions.

[Always A Marine]

You are a student of human nature, and your observations from the ward translate to the battlefield where the baser side of human nature reigns supreme. Excellent post.

[William Terrell]

Uh, I think you're talking to a man who is convinced of his convictions because he has seen it done so many times. In movies and television stories, and read it in novels.

My heart goes out to the CMC, who has to deal with this shit. I would have loved to see the political brass try it with Chesty Puller.