Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: ansel12

Yeah, which is why in #23 I said it would be foolish for a general to have all-female units.


31 posted on 01/25/2013 11:57:17 AM PST by stuartcr ("I upraded my moral compass to a GPS, to keep up with the times.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]


To: stuartcr

Out of respect for Gay soldiers the Army served a new cereal called Queerios. It didn’t work out though because when you added milk the cereal pieces all ate each other.


32 posted on 01/25/2013 12:10:44 PM PST by csmusaret (I will give Obama credit for one thing- he is living proof that familiarity breeds contempt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

To: stuartcr
What general would have either all-female or all-male units? That would be foolish wouldn’t it?

The enemy doesn't just get to pick and choose which units that they can direct "all" their fire power on based on the demographics of a unit, war doesn't work that way, and what general would not want all male military units?

America can lose wars, and can cease to exist as a nation.

Females mean lost battles, which can lead to lost wars. In a major war, to a nation powerful enough to force our complete capitulation, then that means we become theirs.

33 posted on 01/25/2013 12:17:15 PM PST by ansel12 (Cruz said "conservatives trust Sarah Palin that if she says this guy is a conservative, that he is")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson