Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-25 next last
To: usmcobra
Perhaps this is a good thread to continue the conversation of women in front lines....
2 posted on
04/13/2003 2:10:24 PM PDT by
alisasny
To: All
Do You Think He Wants You To Donate To Free Republic?
|
|
Tick him off. Donate Here By Secure Server
Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use
PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
|
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!
|
3 posted on
04/13/2003 2:10:48 PM PDT by
Support Free Republic
(Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
To: Tailgunner Joe
What was she doing there in the first place? She was a supply clerk.
POW's found today include Army Spc. Edgar Hernandez, Army Spc. Joseph Hudson, Army Spc. Shoshana Johnson, Army Pfc. Patrick Miller, Army Sgt. James Riley, Army Chief Warrant Officer 2 Ronald D. Young Jr., Army Chief Warrant Officer 2 David S. Williams
Five of them were from the 507th Maintenance also. Two were Apache helicopter pilots. They were all defending our right to b*tch about their being there.
To: Tailgunner Joe
Ironically this clown skirts close to the liberal argument that fathers don't matter.
We're supposed to believe that someone's mother being killed is worse than their father being killed.
5 posted on
04/13/2003 2:14:18 PM PDT by
John H K
To: Tailgunner Joe
This article pretty well nails it... but there's an underlying issue that won't go away. "Society" pays more homage to those who "risk their lives" than it does to those who don't. This attitude - and I'm NOT commenting on whether or not it's justified - is particularly prevalent in the military, where those who serve "behind the lines" are denigrated as "REMF"s, or "Rear-Echelon Mother-[Feinstein]ers".
As long as that is the case, the feminists - and even women in general - are going to have considerable motivation to agitate for being allowed to serve in combat.
7 posted on
04/13/2003 2:17:23 PM PDT by
fire_eye
To: Tailgunner Joe
"In the women's barracks, the women were being sexually harassed by the lesbians when they weren't being hit on by the men," she said. "Two of the lesbians got new recruits drunk so they could gang-rape them in the women's barracks."
This was a too frequent case at Parris Island in 1976-1979. Lesbian Drill Instructors and officers constantly preyed on the young female recruits, or those who had just graduated from boot camp. When caught, the homosexual officer/NCO was usually discharged. In some cases, they were reassigned to another post, and they started all over again. (I was on more than one court martial and several investigations in these cases.)
To: Tailgunner Joe
It's too bad that Patsy Schroeder can't be put on the front lines too. That ought to make her squint!
Like the song says: "...things change, don't you know, when you're too old to go..."
To: Tailgunner Joe
What part of EQUAL is it that we do not understand. Women should play in the PGA & should hit from the mens tees, play in the NBA, there should be no womens sports as such. If women are equal there should be no distinctions. If there are distinctions than women are not equal.
Of the same degree with another, as in magnitude or value: neither greater or less. I am equal except.
15 posted on
04/13/2003 2:35:49 PM PDT by
BIGZ
To: Tailgunner Joe
The creation of a double standard necessary to get women into these slots is all the proof that anyone needs that they don't belong there. The differences between men and woman go well beyond physical size but most americans TODAY are ignorant of them.
But the biggest problem is that everyday officers salute a lie. They ORDER their subordinates to salute the lie. They order their subordinates to MOUTH the lie. The result is that the orginazation can no longer examine itself in its mission and correct any problems which crop up because there is an area of HUGE problems WHICH CANNOT BE MENTIONED OR IMPLIED.
You will notice the degree to which Special Forces are used STRATEGICALLY instead of TACTICALLY. This is being referred to as a new paridigim. Nonesense. It is simply that SP still trains like MEN in the purely MASCULINE atmosphere that 5000 years of military history and tens of thousands of years of human history dictate as NECESSARY to success.
No, today any 98 lb girl (I was last 98 lbs in 5th grade!) can go SLUM as a man if she wants to take such a pause on her way to settleing down and having a few kids. And it doesn't matter to oUR society that they are getting themselves and good men killed so that their egos or ambitions may be satisfied. Take a look at the DEBACLE of the ambush involving Lynch's company. Count the people present (male or female) who could not have been there in the pre feminized era and replace them with the standard soldier. Case closed.
16 posted on
04/13/2003 2:36:44 PM PDT by
TalBlack
To: Tailgunner Joe
As C.S. Lewis said, the social goal of liberals is to make religion private and pornography public. Very insightful...
I am going back and forth on this one. On the one hand there's the "well she signed up for it!" crowd, and on the other, the folks saying "she didn't sign up for THAT..."
From the description above, sounds like the only women who "make it" are lesbians... Well I have seen some butched up chicks who could probably kick the a$$es of most men who crossed 'em...
25 posted on
04/13/2003 2:49:28 PM PDT by
maxwell
(Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation...)
To: Tailgunner Joe
Many brave men risked their lives to save Pfc. Lynch following an Iraqi man's report that a woman soldier was being tortured at a hospital. No doubt they would have risked their lives to save a male soldier as well.
30 posted on
04/13/2003 2:59:36 PM PDT by
Lorianne
To: Tailgunner Joe
...Her comrades, most of them men, did not fare as well, with nearly a dozen bodies found...I suspect Pfc Lynch was receiving hospital care of sorts rather than the fate of her male colleagues because it was thought that as a young attractive female she would eventually make a nice "favor" for parties attended by Saddam and his buddies - on the other hand feminists would probably claim that this fate was preferable to that suffered by the males who died outright - very strange.....
To: Tailgunner Joe
Every male member of my Immediate family served. My father, my step-father(Purple heart Vietnam, Khe Sahn), my two brothers. One brother is 82nd airborne and has gone on to spec ops. He's sucking sand right now, I don't have status as to his wherabouts.
My Sister is a Reserve Captain, just recently retired after 20 years(she's going to re-up or something I've yet to figure out). I can't speak for her but upon asking her about women on the front lines, she's against it. Men are stronger and more able to take the fight to the enemy. Much like firefighters...who would you prefer to show up at your house fire? a 6'3" fit 230 pound guy who could toss you on his should and walk out or a fit 115 pound female who'd have trouble dragging you out. I know my choice.
Women can certainly have a role in war, but when it comes to confronting the emeny, there is no reason for them to be there.
38 posted on
04/13/2003 3:13:23 PM PDT by
Malsua
To: Tailgunner Joe
The men will always want to protect the women. It puts the men out on a limb and it might even make them hesitate.
To: Tailgunner Joe
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.
58 posted on
04/13/2003 4:04:07 PM PDT by
Lorianne
To: Tailgunner Joe
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!
59 posted on
04/13/2003 4:10:54 PM PDT by
Henchman
To: Tailgunner Joe
For an army that Mr. Knight claims was ruined by all those Clinton policies it sure kicked some serious Iraqi ass, didn't it? I'm not sure how they could have done better.
To: Tailgunner Joe
If women could do the things men were designed to do as well as men can do the things men were designed to do, it would mean the Designer made a mistake. The Designer makes no mistakes.
139 posted on
04/13/2003 7:32:57 PM PDT by
185JHP
( Brisance. Puissance. Resolve.)
To: Tailgunner Joe
When America sends young women off to war, watching them kiss their toddlers goodbye, we are making a moral choice that children are just not important anymore. It is much more important to drive a military truck.
To: Tailgunner Joe
In 1948, the Israelis put women soldiers into the front lines, but had to pull them after a few weeks. Discipline broke down, morale plummeted and men ignored orders, rushing instead to protect the women. Doesn't anyone else recognize the evil liberal genius of putting women in combat? During combat, the more heroic-type men (i.e., Republicans) will rush forward and get themselves killed trying to save the women, while the liberal weenie-men will hold back and survive. Therefore, after the war is over, all you'll have left in society is a bunch of traumatized, psycho bulldykes and liberal weenie-men who either served or didn't (the latter having dodged the draft), and this population of pervs will henceforward elect democrapic presidents until the end of time . . . Genius . . . Sheer genius. We've got to stop these people.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-25 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson