No, I disagree. Women can serve, as proven, with distinction, and leaving the armed forces open to people who want and can serve their nation in a fighting capacity is neither socialist nor liberal. Women have served in history as clerical/support, not in line of fire or other front line roles. Also this has been found in all other civilizations (that were healthy). Not putting women in dangerous front line roles is conservative, that is, to conserve ways that have proved to be compatable with the way men and women are, as proved time and time again throughout history.
Therefore putting women in harm's way in armed conflict, especially when there are so many men available, is a liberal position. The fact that socialism and it's more intense progeny, communism, are built on such as that make it a socialist position.
If you support that idea, which you do, you must be a liberal/socialist.
Therefore putting women in harm's way in armed conflict, especially when there are so many men available, is a liberal position. The fact that socialism and it's more intense progeny, communism, are built on such as that make it a socialist position. If you support that idea, which you do, you must be a liberal/socialist.
That might be the most moronic slippery slope argument I've seen yet.
Besides, "General", nothing in your trick bag makes you an expert, and according to a friend of mine I just got off the phone with, a female reserve major and veteran of GW1 (who incidentally participated in combat), she could likely kick your butt (fighting woman to weasel). The lady was unimpressed by your statements or credentials, in fact, kinda laughed.