[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.

[William Terrell]

Ok, let's take the whole force into account.

Tell me, then. Why go scratching around in the watermelon patch for the occasional volunteer strawberry? Why not stick with the strawberry patch? To indulge the few individuals while just possibly putting the whole force into jepardy thereby?

[William Terrell]

Sorry Cowboy, I hit the wrong post. Bad aim.