Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Parker: 'What the Hell Was Jessica Lynch Doing in the Army?'
NewsMax.com ^ | 11/19/03 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

Posted on 11/19/2003 10:32:53 AM PST by kattracks

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-66 next last
To: vanmorrison
I am continually amazed at how many people in this country continue to align themselves with the Democrats

A democracy . . . can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.” -- Alexander Fraser Tytler

Follow the money. When 50%+ of the voters are paying less than 1% of the taxes it's time to ask

"What's this basket we're in ... and where are we going?"

41 posted on 11/19/2003 1:24:27 PM PST by tx_eggman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: RinaseaofDs
He's been a bit busy of late. Reversing the policy now is sort of shutting the barn door after the horses have left.

1. It only takes a phone call to have someone type up the general order and a minute to sign it.

2. It is never too late to reverse bad policy.

42 posted on 11/19/2003 1:31:49 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the 9
" The fact that a woman can lift the 40 pound load required of her nominal position does not mean she will be able to lift the 200 pounds that may be required in a disaster."

I'm about the same size as Jessica Lynch, and reasonably fit. However, it would be a struggle for me to drag/carry my skinny ten year old son more than a few yards, let alone rescue a grown man or woman. While I'm a great proponent of equal opportunity for women, I don't see how any woman (or perhaps man) of this size belongs in a place of potential combat. There are times when physical size and strength are of critical importance, and to pretend otherwise puts soldiers needlessly at greater risk.

43 posted on 11/19/2003 2:36:10 PM PST by Think free or die
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
I would agree, but there are people that need to be called, buy in that needs to be had, and other stuff.

In a vacuum, your right, evey law is but a stroke of a pen.
44 posted on 11/19/2003 2:41:12 PM PST by RinaseaofDs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: No Blue States
I guess that they figured it out too...
45 posted on 11/19/2003 3:36:20 PM PST by bannie (The government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend upon the support of Paul.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: RinaseaofDs
No change in law needed. Just the Commander In Chief issuing an order to his troops.
46 posted on 11/19/2003 4:56:39 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: tx_eggman
You may have explained the basic reason for Democrat popularity. But that still doesn't mean that the majority of the American people aren't asses for supporting them.
47 posted on 11/19/2003 9:41:46 PM PST by vanmorrison
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: RinaseaofDs
He's been busy of late, but he had nearly 2 years to do something about it before 9/11. He did nothing.
48 posted on 11/20/2003 1:12:52 AM PST by milemark (Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is conspiracy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: LaraCroft
Here's a question for you: What do you do with a pregnant sailor?
49 posted on 11/20/2003 1:20:09 AM PST by teldon30
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: milemark
By my calendar, the time between November 2000 (when he was elected) and September 2001 is about a year, but then you have to remember that he wasn't inaugurated until January 2001.

January to September is about 9 months, right?

9 months does not equal two years, not even almost.

The C in C does not issue orders to troops. He calls in his Joint Chiefs and consults them, he gets options from them, and he chooses one.

The time to reverse major policies in the military is NOT in the middle of a major conflict.

I'd cut GWB some slack here.
50 posted on 11/20/2003 5:57:32 AM PST by RinaseaofDs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Think free or die; Servant of the 9
I have always been very active physically, and inherited a very solid build and unusual strength from my dad (who is a small man but a fireplug, as am I and my son.) I'm fitter and stronger than most women, who are uniformly amazed by my "feats of strength" which unfortunately are really no big deal (lifting 50 pound bags of concrete onto a loading dock seems to be something most women can't do.)

But it's plain to me from working in construction and on a cattle ranch that I'm still not as strong as the average man. I sometimes get myself in a jam doing things like moving railroad ties and have to whistle for my husband, who is a moose (6'6" and 240). I've done a good deal of backpacking but I keep my pack at 30 pounds max, no way could I carry full pack (and the radio - my poor husband always wound up carrying the (*&^&(%$) radio) on a 10 or 20 mile forced march.

It's unfair (and dangerous) to everybody to put women into situations where they can't do the job.

51 posted on 11/20/2003 6:14:30 AM PST by AnAmericanMother (. . . sed, ut scis, quis homines huiusmodi intellegere potest?. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
"Parker says that Lynch's story offers Americans, and especially women, "a cautionary tale: A 5-foot-4-inch, 100-pound woman has no place in a war zone nor, arguably, in the military."

That says it all. Regardless of the sophistication of modern weaponry, it all comes down to the soldier in the field - the grunt with the gun and the bayonette and fist who will have to slug it out face to face with an equally armed and determined opponent. And all other things being equal, no woman can match a man in physical combat.

Don't blame Jessica Lynch - blame the feminist lesbian harlots who instigated this policy and the pandering, testicleless politicians who implemented it.

52 posted on 11/20/2003 6:28:13 AM PST by ZULU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RedBloodedAmerican
Don't they have kitchens in the army?

It was reported back in March in the midst of the POWs being captured that Shoshana is/was a cook in the army.

53 posted on 11/20/2003 6:29:20 AM PST by TexKat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the 9
In truth, I think we are going to have to lose a major Naval Vessel before that happens.

USS Acadia (AD-42), was pulled off the line during Gulf War I because its crew could not man the ship. Too many women sailors aboard had become pregnant during the cruise.

54 posted on 11/20/2003 6:31:24 AM PST by Hemingway's Ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
"Don't blame Jessica Lynch - blame the feminist lesbian harlots who instigated this policy and the pandering, testicleless politicians who implemented it."

Q of the D.

55 posted on 11/20/2003 6:42:35 AM PST by No Blue States
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: teldon30
What do you do with a sailor with a broken leg? A ruptured appendix? A mental breakdown?
56 posted on 11/20/2003 9:04:39 AM PST by LaraCroft (Grrr baby, very very grrrr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: LaraCroft
That's what i thought...you have no answer....i remember the USS Yellowstone (Loveboat) back in 1991....more than a third of the crew got pregnant on the way to the gulf...the boat was not ready for duty and sent back to port.
57 posted on 11/20/2003 3:52:58 PM PST by teldon30
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: LaraCroft
oh yeah...i almost forgot about the prostitution that was going on on the ship....and yes it goes on...the media doesn't have the guts to report those stories.
58 posted on 11/20/2003 3:55:01 PM PST by teldon30
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Lynch was in a unit that would normally be so far to the rear the only combat soldier she's likely to see is one being transported to a hospital.

The problem is the nature of modern war and especially assymetrical warfare. Often, there is no "front line" or rear area. To keep women safer we need to go back to the WAC concept and get them out of units operating anywhere near the front. Still, there is no ironclad solution. Brave women were captured on Bataan and Corregidor and became POW's under terrible circumstances.

59 posted on 11/20/2003 4:09:40 PM PST by colorado tanker ("There are but two parties now, Traitors and Patriots")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ibheath
No, the ban against women in combat was lifted in.. I dunno.. 1995?

While 84% of women in the Israel military serve in admistrative duty, very few are in combat duty, and only 18% get weapons training.

Denmark, Canada.. and.. hmm.. another European country have women in combat roles.



60 posted on 11/23/2003 12:10:53 AM PST by LaraCroft (Grrr baby, very very grrrr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-66 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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