Lynch Shot Iraqi Soldiers

The Washington Post ^ | April 3, 2003 | Susan Schmidt and Vernon Loeb

[Search4Truth]

"Our weak military is losing many lives of men and failing to perform in this war? - Are you watching a different war than I am? I think their advances and extremely low losses show a force that is the best in the world, in spite of these women being there.

Your fear was real, however, it is not playing out. Our military is strong."

Indeed they are. So why are women there? To prove a feminist point that women are equal to men? They are not needed to win the war, and place our brave fighting men at needless additional risks. So to your mind, how much additional risks must our brave fighting men take to indulge your political correctness and feminism?

Women on the battlefield serve only to promote and further a feminist and politically correct agenda, at the risk of the lives of our brave men. But then, so many have already died on the alter of feminism already. I suppose a few good man added to that list is of no consequence.

It is interesting how we at FR loath Liberalism, but then embrace feminism. We are, and will continue to be, victims of our own duplicity.

[Lee'sGhost]

Thanks.

[NFOShekky]

Women In Combat - No Women In Combat,
Hero - Not A Hero,
M-16 - 9mm,
WHO CARES!

An AMERICAN teenage girl from a rear echelon unit (whose only combat training was probably in basic)goes toe-to-toe with Iraqi troops, kills several before being captured. Call her what you want, but this shows the world how "weak" and "soft" American youth are! Her story gives me faith in the future of this country and erases the images of a 1000 braindead protesters her age in my mind!

Let the Republican Guard or any other enemy of this country take notice: Push us against the wall and see what you get! If this is what those "in the rear with the gear" give you, wait until you meet our front line folks. Give em hell tigers!!!

[TaxRelief]

Not, Lucille Ball? Not, Bozo?

[Gamecock]

Want to put things in perspective, why not just admit performed in a manner that demonstrates bravery under fire? We all mourn the dead, but why are you so against recognizing bravery under fire? Why are you questioning that a fellow service member acted bravely?

Sounds to me like you are wringing your hands just a little to much.

[Gamecock]

You know, I thought about that, but copuldn't help myself! ;->

[Gamecock]

PUC? You bet. I think there should be plenty of those togo around for the warfighters! They have all performed splendidly!

[HairOfTheDog]

So you can look at the evidence of how we are performing despite the women being there and still hang on to the assertion that women are costing lives. That is just the way you thought it would be, there isn't any evidence that is true.

Keeping women from doing jobs that they are capable of doing and want to do is not part of my agenda, nor is it a stated goal of the Republican party. It might be the goal of some on the fringes here who think the proper role of women is really up for debate still... but they haven't got the memo. This page is written already. Women are in the military, and have been trained in many roles of military service for many years. Their privilege to serve is not an agenda item.

[MJemison]

Much as I would like to disagree, I'm afraid you are right. That poor gal must have been terrified, and at the same time enraged at the deaths all around her, to fight so hard. She must be made of stern stuff to have survived the next 8 days. And I am sure that all of this was going through the minds of the men who risked their own lives to rescue her. It doesn't seem like a sound way to go into battle.

[Search4Truth]

"So you can look at the evidence of how we are performing despite the women being there and still hang on to the assertion that women are costing lives. That is just the way you thought it would be, there isn't any evidence that is true.

Keeping women from doing jobs that they are capable of doing and want to do is not part of my agenda, nor is it a stated goal of the Republican party. It might be the goal of some on the fringes here who think the proper role of women is really up for debate still... but they haven't got the memo. This page is written already. Women are in the military, and have been trained in many roles of military service for many years. Their privilege to serve is not an agenda item."

Women are being put on the battlefield not because they are suited for the task, for they are not. They are being put there simply because they are women - a mandate from the feminists.

Equality feminists believe the differences between men and women are environmental. That women have assumed the roles they have in the past, not because it was their nature, but because of the oppression of men. Those feminist have the absurd fantasy that one day women will be equals of men in defense of their country.

We do not need women on the battlefield to win the war, so why else are they there, but to promote the idea that women are the equals of men. That concept frees women from the burden of any indebtedness to men, an indebtedness that feminist abhor.

Women are being put on the battlefield at the risk of the men who will protect them on the battlefield, which is the nature of our fighting men. Or is that male role up for discussion too? Is it only women who can abandon their roles?

When men are killed protecting women on the battlefield, will that change your mind? Or is that an acceptable price for men to pay for women's “privilege” to assume the role of a man? I would say that there is a lot to be discussed about the roles of women in the military.

There are many roles for women in the military in which they are suited and have served with distinction. Political correctness and feminism should not continue be a determining factor in those assignments.

I would suggest to you that men will abandon their roles and responsibilities as men, to the degree that women continue to abandon their role as women. This is a disconcerting thought. One day our country will again be threatened by evil and there will not be enough men left who will assume their roles as men. Unless you think, that on that day, women will come to our defense.

Do you see no contradiction between conservatism and feminism?

[agincourt1415]

Bronze Star (at Least), Purple Heart, and I wonder if she quailifies for the Combat Infantryman Badge?

[The KG9 Kid]

I think that most US Army soldiers in Iraq qualify for the CIB at this point.

Certainly, Pfc. Jessica Lynch.

By the way, she's not going to be a Pfc. very long. 'SP4 Jessica Lynch' is my guess within a month or so.

[agincourt1415]

I didn't know if you had to go to Army Advanced Infantry School to qualify. But if you ran out of ammo in the field in a Fire Fight - I would think you get one anyway.

[ApesForEvolution]

Same-ness and equal rights are not mutually inclusive.

[Bigg Red]

sorry...no women in combat will always be my creed.

Thank you. Agreed.
Agreed also that she was just doing what she has been trained to do. Trying to save your own life like this takes courage, but it is not heroic. Heroism is putting yourself in danger to save someone else.

[VOYAGER]

People who are interested in what really happened need to wait & see here.

Your post says it all and reinforced my post and made me feel what I said needed to be said before this young service person, whose bravery and dedication are not in question here, begins to grow extra body parts and becomes bigger than life itself.

I am convinced that of all people she would have to be the first to say get it right the first time because exaggerations and the over embellishment of the truth is impossible to live with and difficult to live down.

Who needs it!

[HairOfTheDog]

Your post only tells me what is in your imagination.

It is not proving to be the case that allowing women to serve their country is destroying the effectiveness of the military. I assert that they are in fact serving with honor and have been for years, and you tell me that you just don't think they *should* be and repeat your unfounded fears about the effect. The decision has been made. Women do serve. And I haven't seen evidence from you that men are hurting because of it.

I would argue that the women growing up to be voters today are not going to be satisfied with the roles your conservatism would offer them. Some of them may look to be Martha Stewart, but some would look to be Jessica Lynch. Some would like to be Condi Rice. Your brand of conservatism will cost you votes and relegate you to the fringes.

Conservatism of smaller government and more freedom to the individual is absolutely not in conflict with women sharing in that freedom. I believe in that kind of conservatism that allows me the freedom to do what I will. A woman's role in the home is a personal decision based on the needs of a family... not a political platform either party is gonna win votes by dictating.

[razbinn]

Hell,they have had the repugnican guard,but we've got

jessi

God Bless america

[razbinn]

jessi the muslim masher

God Bless america

[patriciaruth]

Agree with your history, and they faced that and continued to face that because both sides were stubborn SOB Americans.