Study: Women in combat bad idea

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Tuesday, June 4, 2002 | By Jon Dougherty

[Washington_minuteman]

Let me add a couple of things. I am usually insulted when I prepare a large post, and then only get short, tert responses as a result. So please, don't be insulted by my #40.

I neglected to thank you for your service. I know quite a few guys who owe their lives to women like you. So, thank-you.

The individual you're having this disagreement with, strayed off topic. He has the right to his opinion, the rightness or wrongness, notwithstanding. Personally, I wouldn't have expended such effort with him. He's only one sand flea on the beach.

For the record, I served, honorably too.

[Snow Bunny]

Thank you for the ping my friend. I am pinging Tonkin too.Please also see post # 39.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

With all due respect friend.. please re-read what the guy/woman said and then how I responded.

I feel I have a right to be offended when someone says my service was "immoral". Or that women can serve NO PURPOSE in the military.

It was regarding "women in combat" (in the physical aspect of it) that I did speak too. I disagree with women being in the "foxhole or front lines" so to speak, with guys. It won't work. The first time a woman has to carry a guy out of a foxhole to save his life, the first time there is a need for shere physical ability and a woman fails and a fellow vet losses their life.. it is all a failure. Women are as close as they need to be when they are in the field hospitals, or doing clerical work at the Hdqtrs. IMHO

However; I think women pilots are just as capable as their male counterparts. But whether they should be in combat zones is still open to debate in my mind. Here is why:

My husband is still a jet jockey. Some of the women he has flown with are extremely good pilots, dare I say even better at times then some of their male counterparts. So what we are talking about here is the "ability" to do their job. I don't think women have the natural ability to fight in combat situations (again, physically), and I think it would endanger fellow troops. I think they would endure captivity as well as a guy would, as we can endure a HUGE amount of pain. They would do as well as anyone else who was captured. Though here in lies the problem and I'm open to debate on the subject,.. because there are other issues to consider. Rape comes to mind, and the psychological aspect of a man seeing a woman tortured or raped. If it would endanger others, and it very well might.. I would be against that too. So my vote on female fighter pilots is still out.

But I had to address the insult to me and all women who have served honorably. I would hope all vets, male or female can understand that.

Thanks for your kind words (maybe not in post #40, but thats ok. I don't think at the time, you caught the insult that was given by the human flea :o) to all female vets.

Thanks for your service too.

[Ohioan]

It is to me very sad, that anyone would even need to conduct this study, to get back to the obvious. Of course, the study does not even address the single most important reason for not putting women in combat units: To do so is to repudiate the whole Chivalric ethic by which men protect women and children, if need be with their lives. Remove the powerful call of the traditional sex roles involved, and you remove that added edge that calls up the effort above and beyond the call of ordinary duty. Throughout human history, traditional sex-roles have called forth our higher, better natures.

President Clinton's putting women into harm's way, was the single most important reason that I supported his Impeachment, while taking strong exception to the way Congressional Republicans mishandled the process. (See The Abuse Of Power)

For the importance of sex roles, generally, see The Feminist War On Love & Reason, and other articles linked thereto.

William Flax

[Washington_minuteman]

"I don't think at the time, you caught the insult that was given by the human flea :o) to all female vets."

You're right, at the time, when I penned post #40, I had missed that (was still looking for someone to comment on the article, actually), and was responding to something that really didn't make sense to me, as it seemed that we were both playing off the same sheet of music. I didn't understand why I was included in that particular ping list.

Ever since the very first war, when two brothers fought to the death, women have always been in close support to their men. They will always be there.

I believe the whole women in combat issue is, as I said earlier, an awful, if not evil, ploy being made by a few ambitious female officers with their eyes on a star or two and a fat pension. They don't care who has to die to make it possible, so long as they get to be called General. They disgust me.

Now, about what that individual said; I understand your feelings and do not fault you, but, I would have just blown it off just the same. Those who know, know; and those who don't, are convicted fools by their own words, for all to see. To entertain such remarks with a response in excess of something like "Oh bother", only gives them undeserved attention and a false sense that such opinions are significant.

Instead, remember how you are appreciated by those you served, the POW's; how they value your service. Those are the voices that matter. There are other voices too which, when combined, obliterate the arguments of those less-schooled.

I remember that today, there are thousands of children who have fathers, parents who have sons, and grandchildren who have grandfathers because of the courageous service of female nurses in the EVAC hospitals who assisted doctors in an impossible task, in deplorable, dangerous conditions, and still found time to give wounded soldiers a glimmer of hope, through mud, blood and artillery fire. A warm smile, a reassuring voice, a gentle touch, letting them know they were going to be okay. As you well know, many of those nurses lost their lives in Vietnam, as well as in all the wars down through the ages.

Of those who survived, those women, and their male counterparts, compose Vietnam's legacy of walking wounded, their hearts stricken to their very souls, and their minds torn asunder by the things they saw and did. Injured in ways only they can comprehend. Hated by some and ignored by most. More casulties of war. This is wrong. They should be honored, embraced, loved and cared for, not ignored and forgotten.

Anyhow, I suppose that I should not post, or even read these threads since they compel me into philosophical and poetic excess.

Take care.

[PISANO]

I thank GOD that I retired BEFORE women were allowed to serve on ships or in forward deployed units. I can't fathom telling Trixie to MAN the 50 caliber while patrolling the Delta on a PBR or to order Penelope and JoAnn to take the point.

[Kevin Curry]

You have a problem with my aunt, the retired nurse, with service in WWII and Korea, my sister-in-law, a jet repair technician, or our daughter, training for intelligence?

Individual cases do not prove the rule. On the whole, the presence of women in the military does create inefficiencies. Women tend to get sick more often, are harder to deploy, and do not have the physical stamina and strength to match a man (e.g., in jobs that, while open to women, are physically demanding). Finally, pregnancy is a quick ticket home or away from the action.

In each case, the unplanned absence or compromised ability of a woman must be absorbed by the system--and usually by a man.

As a nation we have elected to eat these inefficiencies in a demonstration of political correctness, and because there are likely too few men willing to volunteer to carry the full burden of national defense. It doesn't matter in a real sense, because we will never return to an all-male military; that's just the way it is

[AMERIKA]

Thanks for the link...bump

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

"It doesn't matter in a real sense, because we will never return to an all-male military; that's just the way it is"

When were we an all-male miltary? Thanks.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

Well said, and I think your philisophical views are well stated. I appreciate debate,.. just not insults. Not for me.. but for all the others who served. Call it Nam syndrome.. I'm sick of our Vets being bashed in any capacity. I swore I'd never sit back idle again when that happened. Todays words struck a tad closer to home, true. It might have been better to just let the statements by some people stand on their own. But didn't America stay silent for too long regarding our Vets already?

I'm greatful they support them now, but we can't let what happened before ever happen again. I just felt as a woman who did a good service for her country.. that NO Vet deserved to take that kind of an insult.

With regard to women in combat,..we tend to agree. Been an interesting debate. Oh, and you were pinged by me as a person who I knew served, who I respected.

FRegards!

[NYpeanut]

gross lowering of standards, quality and morale, then I would only have a problem with them being shoved into combat. Their negative effects are both deleterious and undeniable.

Drop dead. 100% of the women I mentioned have served honorably, proudly, without pregnancy, sickness, lowering of standards/quality/morale or deleterious effects. They are patriots, and you're a jerk. I forget--am I allowed to say that here?

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

RE: Your Aunt, the retired nurse, with service in WWII and Korea, your sister-in-law, a jet repair technician, and your daughter, training for intelligence.

God Bless them..and we salute them and thank them for their service. You must be very proud.

FRegards!!

[Thorondir]

"ANY woman serving in our military is wrong and immoral"

In attributing this false quote to me, I wonder if you are wild-eyed with feminine hysteria or just LIEING. Either way, point out the post of mine that contains this quote.

Or was it just a LIE?

And I see you completely dodged the questions and points I have raised. Hysteria exerts an illusory power over the hyserical, but it is a far cry from valor, strength, courage and keeping one's head while under fire. THOSE are some of the qualities needed by soldiers.

[Thorondir]

Women have served honorably, but their serving has caused the services to reduce all standards, not only the unmentionable double standard, but all standards, except in a few elite units where women are forbidden to apply. If you deny this well documented, much debated and well known fact, then how should I expect to carry on any debate with you? Denial of reality is an intellectual detriment, not an asset.

And you are certainly allowed to call me anything you want. But what it is supposed to prove is your guess, not mine. I really don't put much stock in other posters' hysteria.

[Shooter 2.5]

I always like that idea. It's not like the women are bullet proof during a real war. Besides, I'm really tired of hearing about the anti-gun soccer moms. If the draft comes back, EVERYONE of age should go.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

Get a clue. Read and TRY to comprehend what others are saying to you. You said we bring down morale.. (a sense of mood, Espre d' Cour, so to speak) you said we serve NO purpose. From reading your posts, you accuse women who served of basically dealing a death blow to our fellow vets. I consider that accussing us of being immoral. It is a general observation. You insulted, I reacted. Get it?

Your the one who won't answer any questions. Are you a woman? Because I'm feeling like you are a woman who was left by her husband for a female vet. It has to be something like that.. or your a man who is just feeling inadequate. You still haven't said if you ever served in our Nations Military either,.. did you? What branch and when?

Either way.. Ciao baby!! I've spent more time on this nonsense than I should have already!!!

[300winmag]

I always like that idea. It's not like the women are bullet proof during a real war. Besides, I'm really tired of hearing about the anti-gun soccer moms. If the draft comes back, EVERYONE of age should go.

If 18-year-old women had to register for the draft, like men are supposed to, the whole women-in-combat idea would get doused in cold water quickly. It would never even get to the stage of an actual draft. Combat is deadly serious, and is not just another "career enhancer" for someone's further ambitions.

What isn't mentioned is that every man in the military might become an infantryman, even if he never intended it. If some disaster happens, someone gives you a rifle and sends you out, whether you're a doctor, pilot, or clerk. Liberals want to give women the choice of combat, but men don't get a choice, even now. In an emergency, if they need infantry, you become infantry, no choice on your part.

I think much of this women-in-combat business comes in the peacetime military. "Infantry officer" will look good on a resume, when you serve in peacetime. But in a real shooting war, such as the one approaching, things get much more serious. "Ticket punching" by both men and women should be stopped.

Women in the military is a great idea, and we've benefited a lot from it. Women in combat is not a good idea, whether they're offered the choice, or a drafted into it. The American military gets smaller and smaller, but we'll always have enough men to choose the combat arms, as long as we treat our military right. Part of "treating them right" is to remember that combat is deadly serious, and therefore we need to keep out "ticket punchers" of either gender who see it as a "choice" for career enhancement.

[Thorondir]

You said we bring down morale
True. But you probably didn't do it intentionally.

you said we serve NO purpose.
Total unmitigated bold-faced LIE on your part... AGAIN.

you accuse women who served of basically dealing a death blow to our fellow vets.
Another LIE on your part. And this one is really kind of funny! What is your problem with the truth?

I consider that accussing (sic) us of being immoral.
Well, whatever. But this cheap dodge of yours does not excuse your LIE in reference to my statements. I can't help you in this regard because I cannot, from such a distance, help you gain some sort of grip on reality. So you are on your own with your wild leaps of illogic. Sorry.

It is a general observation. You insulted, [Nope.] I reacted.[like a hysterical nut] Get it?
Well, actually it is an erroneous (that means wrong or flawed) interpretation on your part. Not an observation. Observations have something to do with the truth. That might be confusing, but take a few deep breaths and get a rational grownup to explain it to you. You might catch on eventually.

Your [My what?] the one who won't answer any questions. Are you a woman? Because I'm feeling like you are a woman who was left by her husband for a female vet. It has to be something like that.. or your [My WHAT again, or did you mean to type "you're" meaning "you are" instead of the possessive form of "you"?] a man who is just feeling inadequate. You still haven't said if you ever served in our Nation[']s Military either,.. did you? What branch and when?

LOL! I have to love you!

Either way.. Ciao baby!! I've spent more time on this nonsense than I should have already!!!
Why quit now? When you have proven you are so good at nonsense. In fact, I haven't seen better in years here on the FR! I am rather enjoying you making a total, hysterical, public buffoon of yourself. I encourage you to keep up the good work. 8o)

[NYpeanut]

I really don't put much stock in other posters' hysteria

Good, then at least we can agree on something. You've got a heap of hysteria there yourself, couched in an annoying superior Poindexter kind of way. Your problem is that few others think you actually are superior and the ones who do are losers, too. I'll bet you have spit bubbles in the corners of your mouth.

I'll also bet you're one of those jerks who has to have the last word.

[Thorondir]

I'll bet you have spit bubbles in the corners of your mouth.

Ha, ha haa, haaaaa! This is too good! And what a person of deep thought and substance you must be.

I'll also bet you're one of those jerks who has to have the last word.

And here is your craven and utterly transparent attempt to have the last word. God, but I love you children.