Posted on 05/31/2004 10:12:50 AM PDT by Kentucky
Thanks. I should have added that women who have enlisted in the last 14 months should know exactly what they are getting into. I've heard also that many women who request assignment as MPs do so because it is the closest to combat that females can get.
Darlin', darlin', darlin'...
So, it's obvious that the only ones who can use the Bible are those who agree with you?
I didn't start with this "the Bible sez" argument - this poster did. I just won the logic war, on his turf, and that upsets you?
I'm sorry, but your outrage at my use of the Bible doesn't have credibility until you address the poster of this article. First, go after the poster, and then you may come after me. It's important to be throrough.
Plus, it's important to have a nice day as well. Happy memorial day. I spent mine at the national cemetery, honoring our dead - rather than denegrating the small percentage of them that are women. Their sacrifices humble me; so many of them, women who served in the Second World War. Among them is my Grandmother.
OOOooh, I will tell my girl that a you said as much! She follows us online from time to time, since she is able to call it "information gathering" (she is in intelligence).
I love your name too! I try to read your posts often; it's not often you run into an all-powerful she-dragon, y'know...
To take "that which pertains to a man" to mean battle equipment, is the fallacy of taking the desired conclusion as a premise for the argument. This passage is rather obviously talking about transvestite behavior.
Actually it would be in his undies.
I agree!
but what do I know... I gave up religion for Lent....
Actually, Tiamat was a plain old human girl who rose to goddess-status by slaying the dragon... ( REALLY REALLY old story!) That Woman Warriot thing again.
People tend to confuse the girl with the lizard...
No.
Are they coming to take the author of this screed away, hee-he, ha-ha, ho-ho?
Probably...
Bottom line: if enough men stopped lying abed in America on St. Crispian's Day, this would not be an issue. But they aren't enlisting (I don't see Mr. Philips discussing his service; I must conclude that, like many folks out there kvetching and moaning about our military, he has not served, and would not serve unless given a choice between said service and a firing squad). So, in the spirit that this idiot's screed is offered, I offer this:
Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Doug Philips? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand to post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!
How would you like to be an injured 240lb lardball fatso man whose only hope of salvation is being carried our by a 145lb man?
Wars are still won, and always will be done, by Infantry occupying enemy ground. In 25 yrs of Infantry service I have tet to see more than a handful of females with the combination of strength, stamina, ferocity, and determination to "take that hill' or to "Follow Me!"
This isn't a slap at any women, just the fact that the two genders are different and you can't legislate away what God created.
I think I explained in an earlier post that those were exceptions. It's women in combat roles.living and fighting side by side with men that I think is wrong.
A conscript army is not necessary at this time, as numerous Administration officials have noted. If and when China becomes a hostile superpower like the Soviet Union, Imperial Japan, or Germany under Hitler or Wilhelm II, it is unlikely that our defense establishment would need an army of draftees. No doubt our social engineers, whether feminazis and other collectivists on the left and "national greatness" neo-conservatives on the faux right, would love to revive the draft, particularly if they could also create a civilian national service corps.
It is bad enough to see females of the ilk of Ms. England wearing the uniform of the United States Army, to hear of the mismanagement of the Iraqi prison by Ms. Karpinski, who has been given the rank of brigadier general in that army, or to read of aircraft carriers and other warships turned into "love boats." It would be absolutely disgraceful to compel those young ladies that have not been debauched by the filth of the mainstream culture, the mass media, and public education to become prey to male and female predators dressed in the uniforms of the U.S. military. They could lose their lives in combat to preserve a nation that would have abandoned morality and decency in the name of egalitarianism.
Placing women in combat, or combat support, roles is a retreat from the standards of Western and Christian civilization. The drafting of women is a full throttle advance to barbarism.
...Rangel said he hoped his initiative would spur his colleagues in Congress to "take a good look at this war before we get involved in it. If we do get involved, at the end of the day, let all of America say we're sharing the sacrifice."
Senate sponsor Sen. Fritz Hollings, D-South Carolina, said the bill could make the country's leaders less bellicose. "One way to avoid a lot more wars is to institute the draft," the World War II veteran said. "You'll find this country will sober up, and its leadership, too."
I loved your post. Often I comment that the few feminists ruined it for the rest of us women. Honestly, there is so much women can do on the homefront to help with a war effort that can even make a bigger difference than going into battle. There are many stories as far back as the Revolutionary War about how women were able to defend their land and even help out their menfolk from home.
Well said, sir.
THE LAW
Selective Service law as it's written now refers specifically to "male persons" in stating who must register and who would be drafted. For women to be required to register with Selective Service, Congress would have to amend the law.
THE SUPREME COURT
The constitutionality of excluding women was tested in the courts. A Supreme Court decision in 1981, Rostker v. Goldberg, held that registering only men did not violate the due process clause of the Constitution.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
At President Clinton's request, the Department of Defense reviewed this issue in 1994. DoD noted that America's prior drafts were used to supply adequate numbers of Army ground combat troops. Because women are excluded by policy from front line combat positions, excluding them from the draft process remains justifiable in DoD's view. Although no conclusions were reached, DoD recognized that policies regarding women need to be reviewed periodically because the role of women in the military continues to expand.
The Selective Service System, if given the mission and additional funding, is capable of registering and drafting women with its existing infrastructure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.