Turning women into cannon fodder

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | April 11, 2003 | Robert Knight

[Paul C. Jesup]

Hitler's Government did not control everything

Your entire post is wrong, the Nazi in Germany during World War II DID control everything, their word was law. I don't know what PC-crap book you learned history from, but you are wrong on so many points.

Socialism will never take hold in America because nobody wants governments to run business. But Fascism is already in place to a certain extent. Government applies a heavy hand on people and business via regulation and taxation.

This SOCIALIST Government control/runs businesses THROUGH regulation and taxation. The fact you don't realize this shows how really brainwashed you are.

[CyberCowboy777]

you sir are totally devoid of fact

Socialism and Communism:
Socialism is centered around an economic system and one social class. Severe government interference in economics, State run businesses and owned property. Centralized planning by the government, ONE PARTY rule, and stresses that there should be only one class of people. No democracy.

Fascism:
Fascism is centered around a societal segregation. It is often both a republic and a fascist state. The preferred class lives in a republic while the oppressed class lives in a fascist state. The preferred class can own business and property. Centralized planning by the government, MORE THAN one party rule, and stresses that there more than one class of people. Fascism combines Marxist critiques of capitalism and bourgeois definitions of democracy to force its issues, confuse logic and create majority consensus between targeted groups.

this is simple fact - Hitler was very proud as was Mussolini of the fact that he did not need to own industry unlike the U.S.S.R.

There is a difference between the two - that is why the Nazi's were "right wing" - they were (fascist) right of socialism.

[nmh]

"A single mother of 2 babies has no business being anywhere near a war zone. How it came to be that Pvt. Piestewa was in that position should sicken many of us. "

Indeed! It't tragic enough she is a single mother of TWO babies. Now she abandons her fatherless babies and goes to war. It sickens me. It's utter selfishness on the part of the mother. It's time for her to be SELFLESS and put the welfare of her illegitimate children FIRST.

[nmh]

What I find ironic here is that saddam insane was ridiculed for using women and children as shields. Are we much better? We deceive females into volunteering to be on the front lines. Never mind that standards are LOWERED because they aren't up to the job. Never mind that they are NOT respected for the "sacrafice" of abandoning their children - that is atleast by nonpc people.

Real men should be ashamed to have women fighting in their place BUT they aren't. It is men that are up to the job of being the protectors; not women.

[usmcobra]

"Past histroy has already proved you wrong. What changes in the human race have occured in the present that makes its members different?"

Why none that I know of.

Your question should have been what changes have occured that made women more capable in the present then in the past, only we both know you don't want the answer and already know the answer. Women of today are exericising more and competing more in organized sports then ever before, and as such are more physically able to do things we would have thought impossible say fifty, twenty or ten years ago.

The military places a high emphasis on running and with good reason, it helps to build stamina and endurance, things that supposibly women lack. So again my point is made.

"If you were to put such gear on men and women for the Marathon, would that change the results, do you think?"

Absolutely no one would be able to finish, off the top of my head I don't know any males that could run a marathon with a full combat load of 782 gear.

As for grenades, They are spherical objects, right? Roughly the size and weight of your average baseball, and yet the military method of throwing them is unlike any other throwing technique in organized sports, small wonder that most women and many men have trouble throwing them well past the blast radius.

No one throws anything the way grenades are thrown.
However you give my fifteen year old daughter a softball and she can throw it in the 80 to 90 mph range with accuracy both underhanded and overhanded. As a matter of fact I would submit she near uncatchable barehanded.

I suppose you never heard of men complaining about their shoulder straps digging into their flesh or causing damage to their muscles from such heavy loads, eiher?

I ignored your question because it is the basis of the ambush liberals have laid on for conservatives, you see the argument of women in combat is a win/win situation for them. If women fail to perform and are slaughtered they get to say that women should not have been in harms way, and it's all Bush's fault they were there, if women succeed despite the dangers they get to say it was their own efforts that put them there in the first place.

It is my opinion that the only way to avoid such an ambush is to raise the standards of training for women so as to avoid keeping those women in the military that just don't cut it physically and mentally. If they are going to serve we had better make sure they are able to serve and ready to serve. That should be the conservative view

Once raising the bar is a conservative doctrine it won't matter that the liberals have set this ambush and the point of women in combat becomes mute. They will at least be ready for it when it finds them.

Oh wait, it already has, the object now is to prevent it from worsening and what better way is there then to call for better training and higher standards?

But don't let what I have to say stop you from heading into straight into this trap the clintonistas have laid, continue to say women don't belong in the military, that they are incapable of serving and that they will cause men to die because of them. That is exactly what they expect you to say and want you to say.

[Paul C. Jesup]

You sir are a 'USEFUL IDIOT' who refuses to admit the true. Also the core of socialism is not so much ownership (at least on paper) but CONTROL!!

Considering you have such backward views on things, you should be on the DU not here at the FR.

[William Terrell]

Your question should have been what changes have occured that made women more capable in the present then in the past, only we both know you don't want the answer and already know the answer. Women of today are exericising more and competing more in organized sports then ever before, and as such are more physically able to do things we would have thought impossible say fifty, twenty or ten years ago.

Yes, women have evolved int he past fifty years into physical and psychological duplicates of men. Right. They now play contact sports with men and prevail. Ok. You are student of Trofim Dennisovich Lyshenko, no?

The military places a high emphasis on running and with good reason, it helps to build stamina and endurance, things that supposibly women lack. So again my point is made.

Women don't lack staminia and endurance. They lack the strength to hoast a wounded comrad and get him out of enemy fire. The lack the strength press on over over brutal terrain with gear needed to fight an enemy. Their mere presence triggers the reflex in men to protect them instead of prosecute the war.

Stamina and endurance are nothing without the brute strength, insensitivity and lack of compassion to bring that endurance and stamina to pursuit of the enemy in an armed conflict.

Absolutely no one would be able to finish, off the top of my head I don't know any males that could run a marathon with a full combat load of 782 gear.

How about three and a half miles in 30 minutes. It's called a PRT. If you were/are in the Marines, you're familiar with the PRT. And you have to requalify every year in peacetime. A woman ever done that?

As for grenades, They are spherical objects, right? Roughly the size and weight of your average baseball, and yet the military method of throwing them is unlike any other throwing technique in organized sports, small wonder that most women and many men have trouble throwing them well past the blast radius.

Every single man in my platoon, and company, in ITR qualified with a grenade. Rarely, if not never, can a woman.

However you give my fifteen year old daughter a softball and she can throw it in the 80 to 90 mph range with accuracy both underhanded and overhanded.

80 to 90 mph? I insist on proof. A softball? Do you know what you're saying?

I suppose you never heard of men complaining about their shoulder straps digging into their flesh or causing damage to their muscles from such heavy loads, eiher?

Certainly. But you put their genitals on their chests and the military would have never developed shoulder straps.

I ignored your question because it is the basis of the ambush liberals have laid on for conservatives, you see the argument of women in combat is a win/win situation for them. If women fail to perform and are slaughtered they get to say that women should not have been in harms way, and it's all Bush's fault they were there, if women succeed despite the dangers they get to say it was their own efforts that put them there in the first place.

My asking if you've ever experienced true combat is a liberal ambush on a conservative? What possible basis could you have for avoiding a simple answer, "yes" or "no"? The only conceivable reason you would avoid that question, as you continue to do, is because if you answered truthfully, any authority for your position would be degraded.

You realize, of course, that women in combat is one of the main planks of the liberal/socialist platform, don't you? You are arguing a liberal position. So, your saying I, as a liberal, am attempting to spring a trap on you, as a conservative is patently absurd.

And you still avoid my question. If you haven't experienced combat, as "combat" is known to mean, how in the world do you have the background to hold your opinion?

Oh wait, it already has, the object now is to prevent it from worsening and what better way is there then to call for better training and higher standards?

You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear, sweetheart. You are not a conservative.

But don't let what I have to say stop you from heading into straight into this trap the clintonistas have laid, continue to say women don't belong in the military, that they are incapable of serving and that they will cause men to die because of them. That is exactly what they expect you to say and want you to say.

Women are perfect for rear, support positions, nowhere near the enemy, where they can, and have, served with distinction. But not in active combat where her fellow combatants' lives depend on her shouldering her share of the load. You are living in an imaginary, alternate reality constructed of technical effects from movies and television.

I spent four years as a Marine. I spent 13 months of that as a grunt in active combat every damn month of that tour. I ran patrols over mountains, sometimes with full gear, through jungles and across plains of elephant grass in 110 degree weather and monsoon, set up ambushes all night, participated in firefights with North Vietnamese and Red Chinese regulars. Every one of those activities required equal and consistent brutal strength of mind and body every sequential second.

And you say a woman, any woman, could endure that without being a danger to themselves and the man next to them?

Sir, you are full of shit.

[CyberCowboy777]

You are wrong and you know it.

I should be on DU? Why? I do not condone or sing the praises of Socialism OR Fascism.

I simply said that the two are different ideologies. And I am right according to the encyclopedia Britannica, the Oxford Dictionary and online Dictionary. Not to mention Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and Western Leaders of the time.

Now you are debating what the definition of 'is' is. Of course socialism is about "control", so is Fascism. They have different "ways" of control and for some different reasons. And ownership is one way of control, yet the two ideologies apply that ownership differently. As was pointed out in the encyclopedia definitions I posted.

You have no idea what you are talking about and I am done with you.

[Paul C. Jesup]

You have no idea what you are talking about and I am done with you.

You are one to talk. Socialism and fascism at the core work on the same rule, that government controls everyone and everything.

If you cannot understand something as simple as that, then I pity you.

[CyberCowboy777]

Whatever.

I gave you quoted documentation.

Just because both want to control does not make them the same.

By your thinking a Cessna and a 747 are the same because at core both are meant to fly.

[Paul C. Jesup]

More like the same model car, different paint jobs.

[usmcobra]

You still don't get it. I've never said that women are equal in performance to men, just that things being the way they are they are making gains towards being equal in strength. Unless you can prove that beyond a shadow of any doubt that they are incapable of equalling the performance of males, they will be able to reach plateaus previously thought unreachable just a few decades ago.

Neither you nor I know the limits of women in the realm of strength, stamina, or endurance but as I have shown those limits are changing and expanding through sports and if they are being redefined by sports then they can be redined by the military through increased training and standards.

You talk about carrying wounded comrades, and just what is the standard method of doing so, The fireman's carry, a method that allows even the weakest man to carry someone larger and heavier then themselves.Not every man in the military is the six foot tall superman you would have anyone that reads your responces would believe them to be having read your posts. Some of us were on the short end of the platoon, I myself was 130 lbs and 5'6" when I entered Parris Island, and yet I was expected to be able to use the fireman's carry to hoist the largest and heaviest member of our platoon. And if I could do it why shouldn't a woman be expected to do it as well?

You are of course familiar with the latest test The Marines put all their recuits through The Crucible?

They are loaded up with full packs and sent on a 48 hour forced march where they are denied sleep, have to undergo a number of test, firng ranges and battlefield problems before completing this 48 hour march in front of the statue of Iron Mike, the raising of the Flag and recieving the Eagle Globe and Anchor. Maybe it's not the same as the PRT, but by all accounts it appears to be harder then one, and there isn't a shortened version for women marines either, nor or their packs any lighter.

Liberals/socialists would rather not have anyone in the military, in fact they see no need for the military at all. Their view of the world is that it is a big fuzzy place where we are always the aggressors, where we are always the murderers and babykillers,where every dollar spent on defence is a dollar wasted and not reshaping the world with love and tolerance for those that would gladly kill us all if they were given the chance.

I spent 11 years in the Marines, and unlike you, I had to deal with Women Marines in an all volenteer armed services, I know that if you raise the standards, that women rise to them. The reason I know this is because I made those Women Marines reach those standards. While others kissed their feet, I forced them to do things they weren't supposed to be able to do.

I give you one example, AH-1J Cobra's are towed using a set of detachable wheels that mount to the skids(you know those things that helicopters rest on when they are on the ground). Those wheels can be mounted two ways, One way makes the Cobra nose heavy meaning the person on the tail has to push down on the rear to prevent the front of the skids from dragging along the flightline. The second way to mount the wheels makes the Cobra tail heavy meaning the person on the tail must hold up the tail to prevent it from dragging along the flightline. I'll leave it up to you to figure out which way I mounted the wheels whenever we towed cobras and I placed a Women Marine on the tail to carry it while it was being towed.

You need to open your eyes to the world we live in and how the armed services has changed since you were in.

"Women are perfect for rear, support positions, nowhere near the enemy, where they can, and have, served with distinction."

You mean safe places like here in the states, like in Washington, Like in the pentagon on September 11Th, There are no more safe places for any of us, This war will find it's victims irregradless where they are, who they are, or what sex they are, Only it is people like you that would stunt the ability of a certain section of our armed forces to defend themselves because of their sex, because it makes you uncomfortable with what might happen to them, versus what already has.

[Tailgunner Joe]

bttt