Fleischer: Rape of POWs 'not worth mentioning'

WorldNetDaily ^ | March 25, 2003 | Les Kinsolving

[AAABEST]

I figured it out guys. discostu is not a guy at all, discostu is an enraged feminazi seminar troll. Check the shrill tone of her posts. What got me was this one:

But she wasn't allowed to be in the front line because she was missing 4 ounces of flesh.

Penis envy anyone? Let's chip in and buy discostu a penis, so she quits having hysterical fits and hyperventillating over the fact that she doesn't have the right to help degrade combat units.

Keep giving her fact after fact and she keeps repeating "you're not giving me any facts". Typical irrational lefty chick. Must be her time of the month.

[discostu]

Hey everybody I figured it out, AAABest is a no good weasel with a miniscule self esteem who deliberately picks fights and insults people to feel better about himself. Let's chip in and buy him a personality.

[discostu]

The problem with your "explaination" of the the chamber is that they wore the masks on the way in, took them off at a signal, sang as much of the hymn as they could then left.

It was me that asked for PROOF of problems with unit cohesion, not more of your unsupported supposition.

You said the strongest woman was only as strong as the weakest man. That's an exact quote. There's an example of the strongest woman. You lose.

[discostu]

I'm convinced of my convictions because I'm right. Be enough of a man to let a person know when you're insulting them, it;s not that hard to include the person you're slaming in the to field.

[CyberCowboy777]

The problem with your logic is that you look only at the individual.

The entire force must be taken into account. While the data is not conclusive there is evidence that most men hold protective feelings toward women.

I am not willing to lower the chances of the VOLUNTARY force that protects my freedoms and the lives of my kids.

I pay for and own the soldiers the best possible environment for winning and women at the forward positions do forward the agenda. I really could care less what anyone wants, the job is way beyond being fair to one person.

[CyberCowboy777]

and women at the forward positions do not forward the agenda.

[discostu]

As you point out the data is not conclusive. On top of that it's not conclusive that a protective feeling would impeed their ability to function as soldiers. One of the things that marks the American fighting man as very different than the rest of the world is the lengths we will go to to rescue a downed man, including losing numerous men in the process (from a strategic stand-point not smart, from a morale stand-point very smart). We hold protective feeling toward all our soldiers, I don't see it being any different if some of them are women.

[CyberCowboy777]

As I said

I am not willing to take chances with the lives of soldiers, my kids or you.

Unless there is a reason that we HAVE to have women in forward positions why add the RISK.

No sane person would put an unnecessary variable into the mix when life and country are on the line.

[CyberCowboy777]

You are mixing protective instincts and loyalties.

Very different - both can be encouraged, neither removed.

There is also an issue with the mentality of women - though not all - they do not react to stress, pain or loyalties the same. How do you test for that?

I am not going to add a unknown variable to the mix when Life and Country are on the line. No matter how bad that make you or any other person FEEL! It is not necessary.

[Always A Marine]

The problem with your "explaination" of the the chamber is that they wore the masks on the way in, took them off at a signal, sang as much of the hymn as they could then left.

The CS gas lets you know if you have a good seal with your mask. Removing the mask and singing the hymn is purely for "motivational" purposes. As I stated earlier, CS is a nonlethal agent, so "handling" it is pointless beyond its effect as a training aid. Learning how to get a proper seal so you can survive lethal agents in combat is the sole reason for the training. You continue to confuse training aids and methods with the training objective.

It was me that asked for PROOF of problems with unit cohesion, not more of your unsupported supposition.

Millenia of human history is proof aplenty, but it doesn't fit your feminist fantasies.

You said the strongest woman was only as strong as the weakest man. That's an exact quote. There's an example of the strongest woman. You lose.

You might find a few hormone-laced freaks who can pump iron, run well, look mean and speak with deep voices. But if you dredged up the meanest bulldyke you could find, she would still be dead meat in the infantry. Wishing yourself a man won't make you one...

[discostu]

Except of course that we always take risks with our soldiers. We give them new equipment, we try out new tactics, new food, new unit types. Why add the risk of keeping away soldiers that could be very good.

[discostu]

Of course you're mixing eras. This was in the 60s, we didn't have the radar dome over all troops back then, and we didn't have enemies that threw lethal agents. Of course once again you keep shifting because you clearly don't know all the facts, and I'm not in the least bit suprised.

Millenia of human history said we couldn't fly. Millenia of human history said fortifications and entrenchment were the only way to fight war. Millenia of human history said democracies and republics don't work. A significant part of American history is proving mellenia of human history wrong.

And here you go weaseling out. You said "the strongest woman", not the strongest qualified woman from within your narrowly defined scope. THE STRONGEST WOMAN. Your words, you were wrong. Deal.

[CyberCowboy777]

New equipment and tactics are thoroughly tested and only implemented when deemed necessary. You will notice how long we continue to use the same equipment - we desire the best possible situation.

Why is it necessary to have women in forward positions? When already know the unintended consequences.

[discostu]

You should look up the history of the F-111 before claiming new equipment is thuroughly tested and deemed necessary before being implemented. Crappy plane from start to finish that accomplished nothing more than killing huge quantities of our airmen. As for new tactics, generally they're invented on the fly, there's no way to test new tactics except in the field and the most likely cause of their inventing is that some general is tired of throwing away lives the same old way.

We don't already know the unintended consequences. If we already knew there'd be a body of empirical evidence to work from. There's scant evidence as to what happenes when you put women in the front line, it's rarely happened but on occasions the results have been very good (Russia in WWII, Joan of Ark). We know what YOU think the consequences will be, as you pointed out in your first post we don't have the evidence to make a sure decision.

[CyberCowboy777]

Conclusive evidence and know consequences are not the same.

The consequences could be small enough to not warrant a limitation on women's involvement in forward positions.

[discostu]

But you can't KNOW they're the consequences without conclusive evidence.

[Proud2BAmerican]

You know, I *really* like that WND has a member in the White House press corps to ask questions -- I thought that was a terrific coup by their team. But this guy Les Kinsolving (sp?) sometimes baffles me on his line of questioning and his choice of topics. Sometimes he asks some good ones, but other times I don't think his questions are too well-thought out or useful.

And from the responses I've seen from Ari Fleischer, I get the feeling that Ari, at least, has a hard time taking Les seriously.

[CyberCowboy777]

We can know there are consequences without conclusive evidence that it is bad enough to limit women in forward positions.

What front line positions are women currently holding?

[Proud2BAmerican]

WND ever had credibility?

Oh, c'mon. I'm not going to argue that WND doesn't sensationalize their headlines fairly frequently, but you have to admit that they do a pretty good job on other stories. They're a pretty good source of information on news, although you do have to learn to sift the wheat from the chaffe from time to time. This guy Les though, I've seen him ask some good questions, but it seems more often than not, his questions are kind of perplexing and self-defeating. He certainly doesn't do much to help put a good foot forward for WND in the public's eye.

[discostu]

No we can't. Without evidnece we can't know ANYTHING. That's how knowledge is built, from EVIDENCE.