Addressing Women In Combat Tokenism

Weekend Libertarian ^ | April 23, 2011 | B.P. Terpstra

[AustralianConservative]

In Australia, a “debate” is raging. Should women fight alongside manly men on the frontlines?

The left-leaning APP reports: “Prime Minister Julia Gillard has voiced strong support for women taking on military combat roles to allow them to fight and if necessary die for their country.”

As well, the APP uncritically reports: “Australia lagged behind Canada and perhaps New Zealand.”

But that’s a Labor talking point – not a fact. Who fears Canada? Who fears New Zealand? In military terms, these allegedly progressive countries can’t even defend themselves.

Also, in recent token-related history the Air Force Times (U.S.) reports: “Air Force women made history two weeks ago when they flew the first all-female combat sortie in Afghanistan.”

Still: “Some airmen cried foul, calling it a stunt by the Air Force to flaunt its progressiveness during Women’s History Month. Others praised the milestone, pointing out the service has had female fighter pilots for nearly 20 years.”

Let’s just say they were helped along.

Late last year too, the Guardian, UK, reported that mixed-gender teams in close combat roles carry “far reaching and grave consequences.” After the history-making Ministry of Defence review: “Officials made clear that the concern was male soldiers paying more – perhaps too much – attention to a wounded female soldier than others at a risk to his own life.”

[...]

Israel’s myth

[...]

Moreover, the hard science of biology has been sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. Queerly, “every single study which shows a clear difference of 20% to 40% in stamina, carrying of loads, oxygen consumption and other parameters which are necessary for prolonged warfare has disappeared or been made to disappear from public view” noted Dr. Gabi Avital.

[Travis McGee]

These were used “only” to take vital points using the element of surprise to help clear the way for the real invasion coming on board naval ships. Much the same way as paratroops were used.

Oh, that’s all??
Thanks for making my point.

[Sherman Logan]

Thanks, but you said NZ could be conquered by Chinese troops on board a single Trojan Horse ship. Not that such a ship could be a part of a massive invasion requiring trooplift of tens or hundreds of troops and their supplies across 6000 miles of water.

Which is it? One ship or hundreds?

[Travis McGee]

One ro-ro ship could carry enough APCs to take and hold North Island while follow on ships full of occupational troops arrived.

China has 70 million “extra” males and they wouldn’t care if 90% of their one-time troops ships were sunk en route to the Philippines, Borneo, New Zealand etc etc.

[Sherman Logan]

I hereby grant you the right to believe what you will.

And I will do the same.

[Travis McGee]

Gee, thanks.

[AustralianConservative]

Fair point and I noticed the Red Chinese are still in Tibet.