Turning women into cannon fodder

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

[southland]

RE Post 9:
I agree with your view.

[zerosix]

It's called speaking the truth.

My guess is either you are under 50 or just plain stupid!

[zerosix]

Amen to that brother.

Anyone who graduated high school ?before the age of enlightenment (men and women are just the same in every regard but one) can recognize that in every profession that requires physical strength as necessary to doing the job, those strength requirement havw been tossed out as alms to the feminist lie.

How many people will die in fires because female firefighters cannot lift the hose, hoist the ladder or carry someone to safety?

[BenLurkin]

The author shows much anger that these women served, and in one case died, with honor. The question is why he insults their memory in such an unmanly screed.

Is it an expression of hostility towards women due to a pathological mysogyny? Is his emotional over-reaction rooted in a deep seated discomfort with women? Or does he have a hidden envy of women and insecurity arising from his own internal conflict gender confusion, or sublimated homosexual predilictions?

It's hard to tell from the article. All that can be known is that there appears to be some mal-adjustment or deviance behind his callous and unpatriotic diatribe.

[JetSetGirl]

"A single mother of 2 babies has no business being anywhere near a war zone."

Maybe she wanted it to be her business.... Proud Americans will fight for their country no matter what the cost, and that is what makes those men and women so very special.

[barbarianbabs]

The men will always want to protect the women. It puts the men out on a limb and it might even make them hesitate.

[zerosix]

Again, you must be under 50, Hugh Hefner, Ted Turner, or just plain stupid.

[Tailgunner Joe]

We who want to remove these threats from women are not haters of women, we are lovers of women.

Those who are expressing hostility toward women are the ones who are happy that they were ordered into harms way, raped and murdered.

[zerosix]

P.S. To Self - Could also be from UC Berkley.

[Lorianne]

So? We should not try to rescue a soldier if we have the opportunity? What is your point exactly?

Futhermore, when they went in they did not know that they were only going to come out with one alive. They would have rescued the others too had they been alive. It so happens they were dead, but we "rescued" their dead bodies all the same. The marines risked their lives to retrieve dead bodies and one live soldier. Those were the cards they were dealt. Apparently they thought it was worth the risk, despite Monday morning quarterbacks now criticing them.

[Lorianne]

Those who are expressing hostility toward women are the ones who are happy that they were ordered into harms way, raped and murdered.

Strawmen upon stawmen arguments. First off no one is "happy" if any soldier is raped or murderded. Secondly, no one has "ordered" anyone into harms way. We have a VOLUNTEER military. People know the risks going in.

Your arguments are hysterical hyperbole.

[Churchjack]

It IS.

[Lorianne]

I suspect its' guilt that he's sitting home safe on his comfortable sofa playing armchair general, while others are out actually serving our country.

[Gnarly]

Tailgunner Joe's point is that he doesn't believe that women should be placed in units that may be engaged in combat. There is nothing in his comments that would indicate that he didn't think she should have been rescued.

By the way, those weren't Marines that rescued PFC Lynch and found the others dead. They were Special Ops..Army Rangers and Navy Seals..according to reports I have seen.

[Blue Collar Christian]

Either you are missing the point, or you don't belong here.

The man has nothing bad to say about the women who serve, or the elation we share for their safety, he has a problem with the system that has allowed them to be compromised to begin with, and the danger this system causes to the men and the mission.

In your comments you make it clear that you cannot even distinguish sarcasm, and now you come off like some kind of Fraudian(mispelling deliberate)ananlist that is as full of balogna as I have ever heard, or perhaps you are just joking. Give us a break!

[Tailgunner Joe]

I stand accused of hating women. I actually love and respect women.

The bottom line is that there is no reason for them to be there, except to pander to feminists and democrats.

No one is denying their bravery for volunteering to serve their country. We are pointing out the reprehensible cowardice of those who sent them to the front lines unnecessarily to be captured and raped by the enemy.

[Tailgunner Joe]

He "can't put his finger" on what the author is wrong about so he resorts to ad hominem insinuation and innuendo. Typical leftist smear.

[Lorianne]

From the ariticl: Third, although some feminists claim that they have a right to serve if they want to, military service is a privilege and a duty – not a right.

We have a volunteer military. The military has for a long time decided it can use the talents of women. This predates modern "feminism".

Putting women into combat endangers all of our daughters because in the 1986 case Rostker v. Goldberg, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that women could not be drafted because they did not serve in combat, and that Congress had the power only to raise armies to fight wars. A few feminists in the front lines could destroy that exemption.

Mainstream feminist organizations are OPPOSED to the draft, it is part of their mission statement. All the author had to do to find out what feminists advocate, he could read their publically posted statements. If they oppose the draft that means they are not advocating that women be drafted.

[Henchman]

It is a tough call. I love women, hold them on a pedesatal (except those who abort or advocate such barbaric, unAmerican idiocy) and believe in equal pay for equal work. Unless a woman volunteers to go into combat, then they should be exempt.

There is a need to eliminate Politically Correct all inclusive statements and to deal with reality. There is a need for some women(not general) in law enforcement. If a 5 foot 3 inch 120 lb female Police Officer is substituted for a 5 foot 10 inch 180 lb male, there is a major difference. The female might legitimately shoot and possibly kill an unarmed attacking larger male. The scale is different for the male officer as to what action to take. In essence, PC places the public in danger and must be corrected. Can the same previously described female, as a fireperson carry a 250 lb person out of a fire, as opposed to the described male? Probably not.

The problem is one of physical stature, strength, child bearing etc that must be dealt with, as opposed to painting the problem with the brush of "descrimination". There are a lot of females and males who aspire to jobs for which they are not suited, fit, trained or educated for - that is not descrimination, but reality!

[Blue Collar Christian]

That, and his provision of pontification with prolific pedantry positively peeves persons of practical parlance.