Replies

Well, I have no problem with women in the military, but they should not be put in harms way. There are plenty of jobs stateside or in the rear they could fill. (I am now putting on my flame suit)Here it is!......What if the captured and killed unit had 3 or 4 more guys fighting instead of the PC quota of women? I know I wasn't there, and the girls may have fired back visciously while attacked and the guys might have been under the truck hiding, but I just believe there probably would have been more firepower with more guys. Thats just an opinion, but I have formed it over 50 years. You can take the roughest gal in the Army and put her against the average guy, and she will usually loose. That is just a fact and you can't wish it weren't true. I was in the Army and saw first hand that they couldn't keep up so they made the tests so they could pass. I saw the same thing in the phone company where I worked for 30 years. There were only a couple of women I would work with that could hold up their end of the work. The rest of them, I might as well do it all myself. Yes, there were men in that catagory also, but I could threaten to whop their arses if they didn't do their part.

I believe there is a place for them and I'm not trying to cut them out of their bennies, like college and such, but they shouldn't be subject to combat. Just like in WWII, the women freed up men to fight by doing jobs more suited for them. I'm an over weight old retired guy, but I bet I could whip the strongest female they got and there would be no hesitation to pull the trigger as I have already worked out the kill or be killed thingy years ago. Like I said, I know I'm using sterotypes and I wasn't there, but I figure I'm probably more right than wrong.

Ok, flame away!