First Girl Lost in War

The Sun ^ | 24 March 2003 | Will Barker

[Maximum Leader]

You're right, I meant to type SERE and it came out SASE (hey it was late).

When Congress passed the Sullivan Act, they had no idea we'd send women, must less married couples with children, into harm's way.

Thanks for your reply.

[libravoter]

Male POWs can be raped/sexually tortured just as easily.

I remember that female soldier who was sexually assaulted as a POW in Desert Storm.

When she was interviewed, she had no problem with being identified and had no shame about her experience. I can't remember her exact words, but to paraphrase, she said that she was a soldierl, it was war, and they were trying to scare her. - it didn't work.

God, I was so proud of her and her courage! She damn well was a soldier!

[libravoter]

No one is disrespecting your sister. No one is championing my son here, either.

They should be championing him. They should be championing ALL our troops.

Yes, some of these soldiers are mothers of young children. But some of them are dads of young children as well.

Parents are important. Fathers are important. It seems to me that once someone says a child deserves a mother and a father, and that "Heather has two mommys" isn't alright for a child, then they should proudly stand up and say that the loss of a male soldier is just as profound as the loss of a female soldier.

I support our troops: male, female, and anywhere in between. If you're willing to die for our country, your sacrifice is larger than any other issue.

[wardaddy]

She had no business anyhwere near combat. My G-d save her.

[wardaddy]

Excellent juxtaposition Thinkin Gal!

It breaks my heart to see that pic of her...and only 19.

[William Terrell]

I know they are and I have repeatedly said that that policy is wrong. I am not a victim of social engineering. I see you have fallen in the "women should be protected" trap. You miss my point and judge me wrongly.

If that policy should be changed the only women who would be able to serve would be those who are so psychologicaly damaged by their inability to actualize female nature that they may be a damge to their fellows for that fact alone. The only way I see for a woman to participate in deadly, confrontational force, and remain female in mind and character is when the last resort of complete annihilation forces a suspension of nature, which it has in the past from time to time.

I don't think I miss your point and I judge rightly. You think that the relationship between men and women is created and ordained by the society and culture in which they live. This belief is reinforced by the use of female characters in movies and television, and their success in endevors of the strength and violent scenes.

The vicarious emotional experience you get from watching such malarkey bypasses your reason and knowledge that these are contrived stories, the like of which have only occured extremely rarely in history in extremely rare circumstances. You are unaware of how you have been manipulted.

The "women should be protected trap" only comes from the operating system of a man that came with him at birth. If you are a man and you don't understand it you are abnormal and should get counceling to uncover you problem so you can deal with it.

Lacking these pathological conditions, one must suspect a particular susceptibility to social engineering, which susceptibility is usually found in men who look no further than the end of their penis.

In all healthy cultures at all times among all races this natal attitude of men is the same. The only time something different has been seen is in the cases of aged, senile cultures, where homosexuality runs rampant and which culture is ready to fade away, or in cases of nations, countires, groups or tribes dominated by madmen, like the current Islamic practices.

If you are not a man, you are a feminist, and carry the credibility problem inherent in that programing.

[William Terrell]

Read my other posts on this thread. They're for you, too, especially this one.

[farmfriend]

You know nothing about women. I feel for you.

[oldironsides]

The change was made to keep women soldiers to the rear after the last Gulf War and the Clinton gang changed it back.

[William Terrell]

You know nothing about women. I feel for you.

From my observation, women often don't anything about women. But thanks for your concern and compassion.

[farmfriend]

But thanks for your concern and compassion.

No problem. According to you, it's my job.

[Hila]

"Women should not be placed in harms way like this" - agree! Especially going into a land of beasts. We knew what they are capable of, why send women in???????

[libravoter]

That's because women, like men, are not all alike. Some are shy, some are soft, some are kick-ass soldiers.

[Queen Jadis]

What an interesting thread. I wonder what are the statistics on the demographics of the posters. Only an opinion without any substantiation but my guess is:

Those opposed to women in the services will tend to be:

1.) male

2.) high school ed or lower

3.) blue collar, certainly not professional

4.) no military experience or if there was military

experience, certainly not at an officer level.

5.) belong to a fundamentalist religion.

What an interesting post! I wonder what the statistics are on the demographics of the poster. Only an opinion without any substantiation but my guess is:

1. I have no idea as to your sex, and I don't care.

2. He/she either graduated High School.

3. He/she has "issues" with those that are "fundamentalist" in their religious faith, especially if male.

4. He/she is deeply troubled and "conflicted" about posting and the posters on FR.

[William Terrell]

Some are shy, some are soft, some are kick-ass soldiers.

Tiny number physically and mentally kickass soldiers, tiny number of men not physically and mentally kickass soldiers. Why in hell dig around in the watermelon patch for the rare volunteer strawberry? Why not go to the strawberry patch? Illusion of "equality"?

Why? for what purpose?

[drjoe]

Lt Col

[Euro-American Scum]

You want facts, I'll give you facts.

I worked with a man a few years ago who spent twenty years in the Marine Corps, several of which were spent training recruits at Campt Pendleton, CA.

Part of this time spanned the years starting in the Carter regime when the liberals were going to reinvent a kinder and gentler military by feminizing it.

So the Corps started training female recruits. And as part of a pilot program at Pendleton, the DIs were required to file fitness reports regarding the suitability of women in combat. Here were some of his (and other DI's) observations:

1. Women did not have the cardiovascular capacity of male recruits, and no amount of cardio-conditioning could make up the difference.

2. Women did not have the physical strength of male recruits and no amount of PT could make up that difference either.

3. Women lacked the inherent aggressiveness of their male counterparts.

4. Women tended to panic during live fire exercises.

The Corps, in its infinite wisdom, did not ban women from recruit training. But they did separate the training of male and female recruits, to their everlasting credit.

I do not denigrate, nor disrespect the contribution of women in this or any other war, and I resent your implication that I do. The fact is, God made us different. We have different capabilities, different gifts, and different handicaps. But I stand by my original statement:

Women have no place in combat areas. Not now. Not later. Not ever. Period.

[wardaddy]

BUMP.

[farmfriend]

What makes you think the guys are not being raped? Your argument doesn't hold water.