Turning women into cannon fodder

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

[earplug]

Most soldiers join the sevice for educational benifits.
Many soldiers join for family benifits. Health care and housing.
A soldier mother with several children takes more of our nations assests for war then the soldier mother contribuites.
A dead mother continues to cost our nation.
Dead single people don't leave a legacy of broken homes and single parent families.
Just because sombody wants somthing, does not make it right.

[Tailgunner Joe]

When you join up, your choices end. It's not up to them where they are assigned.

Women have been in the military a long time but only since feminists repealed the laws that kept them out of combat are they now sent into harm's way unnecessarily.

Democrats like Charlie Rangel want to bring back the draft so that people will oppose war and the nation will be paralyzed into impotence. Imagine how much more we will be paralyzed when they start talking about drafting women.

It's only a matter of time.

[Blue Collar Christian]

"If they oppose the draft that means they are not advocating that women be drafted."

His point is that women should not be fighting! SHEESH!

[Doe Eyes]

Thanks to Bill Clinton who repealed the Risk Rule that would have kept her out of danger.

And I thought President Bush was in charge of our military.

[BenLurkin]

Tail Gunner Joe says: "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."

Do you A) Agree and if so B) State your reasons why.

Joe has framed the issues into a clear point of discussion. This is a forum for discussion FRiends. Let's not shout at each other, for then no one learns anything.

[NoControllingLegalAuthority]

In the military, it's about the mission. A simple question is "Can a woman or man BEST complete the mission? In combat, the answer is obvious. The military is not about sexual equality, it is about succeeding in a mission to kill people and blow up things. The standards must be and have been lowered for women.

The carrier pilot (Holtgreen) who killed herself in an F-14 was apparently rated unfit to fly the Tomcat and yet politics reportedly kept her flying against recommendations from instructor pilots who flew with her and observed her pilot skills.

The competence of women in military combat has become a big fat lie and a big fat cover-up of that lie.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Listen, if you want to standards to be equal (which you yourself agree stated), then those women who pass those standards should be able to handle any responsiblity that their male counterparts can.

And about 'effect on morale and behaviour of the troops as a whole': They said the same thing about that on the issue of race, which was proven wrong.

[Paul C. Jesup]

The standards must be and have been lowered for women.

That is just BS. Lowering the standards just gives you and others the excuse that women should not be military. But if you raise the standards to be equal between the sexes, then your arguement dies on the vine.

[Blue Collar Christian]

"Dead single people don't leave a legacy of broken homes and single parent families."

So we should not let married men fight?

[Blue Collar Christian]

Yes, President Bush is in charge of our military, but he cannot just arbitrarily change what Slick did to the Risk Rule. He's President, not KING.

[Gnarly]

""Dead single people don't leave a legacy of broken homes and single parent families."

So we should not let married men fight?"

Oh, come on! The issue seems to be muddy enough without such tidbits of irrelevancy being thrown in!

[Tailgunner Joe]

So prove it wrong in regards to gender. You can't.

We are fighting the Leftist/Islamist Fifth Column right now because of this PC crap.

The Military's Moslem Problem: Pentagon Sacrifices Lives to Accommodate Political Correctness

[Tailgunner Joe]

I would consider equaling the standards a step in the right direction. It would eliminate the vast majority of women from combat duty which they are incapable of anyway.

As far as whether they should be in combat, that is not up to them but their commanders. They should be put where they can be of the most help. That's not on the front lines.

Yes, I am in favor of different standards for women. Women deserve special treatment in this case. They should be protected from unnecessary danger.

[cubreporter]

Well said.

[NoControllingLegalAuthority]

....and another thing.

Those who cheer women being unnecessarily put in combat should immediately sign up their daughters. I have a daughter and I don't want her raped, tortured and/or murdered in combat because Her Royal Dykeness Hillary Clinton thinks it's a swell idea.

I already buried my son. I don't think I want to bury my daughter because of politically correct horses*** shoveled by fools in complete denial of the reality of combat.

The SOB's can put THEIR daughters on the front lines and give noble speeches at their daughters' funerals.

In which army unit will Chelsea Clinton be fighting for her country?

[Wicket]

Exactly so. I am a 50 year old, female, semi-couch potato. I noted in the photos of these two women that they are both quite small.

I am not, by any means, wanting to impugn their courage or their desire to serve. However, women are physically and psychologically different from men (d'oh). Their presence on the battlefield is a danger to others, both due to their reduced strength and the men's God-given desire to protect women.

I am not comforted in the least by military efforts to desensitize this instinct. In fact, I am appalled.

I thank God that these women are coming safely home to their families. I also hope that this present administration will take measures to avoid further combat-related incidents by not allowing women to serve in battlefield areas.

[Tailgunner Joe]

Hillary Clinton on the Senate Armed Services Committee