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


1 posted on 11/19/2003 10:32:54 AM PST by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: kattracks
'What the Hell Was Jessica Lynch Doing in the Army?'

Uh...feminists and the "Women in Combat" agenda during the Clinton administration (all for the sake of the vote and feminizing the military) comes to mind...
2 posted on 11/19/2003 10:35:30 AM PST by grumple (I'm too old to worry about whether or not I'm a pain in your ass...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kattracks
Don't they have kitchens in the army?
3 posted on 11/19/2003 10:37:51 AM PST by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kattracks
A minor point, but I thought I read that Lynch was not raped.
4 posted on 11/19/2003 10:39:01 AM PST by cruiserman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kattracks
Absolutely, We can win our wars without putting our women in battle.

Reverse anything clinton ever did.

5 posted on 11/19/2003 10:39:08 AM PST by No Blue States
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kattracks
Our present system of women in the military is a farce.

I have no objection to women anywhere as long as they meet the same rigerous physical standards as men. No more wimping down physical requirements for positions. Jane Wayne or out.

In truth, I think we are going to have to lose a major Naval Vessel before that happens.
If you read the reports on the fire on the Forrestal CVA-59 in 1967 you will see that if it happened today, with women in the crew under current physical strength standards, they would never have been able to manage the fire fighting and damage control and the ship would have been lost.

So9

6 posted on 11/19/2003 10:42:33 AM PST by Servant of the 9 (I am not reptilian, I just have a low basal metabloism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kattracks
Like Parker, Donnelly writes that many Americans also may wonder how Lynch got to the frontlines to begin with, and goes on to explain that "Under rules issued by the Clinton administration, female soldiers in support units are now being forced into areas involving a 'substantial risk of capture.'"

This policy, she notes, "is inconsistent with privacy rules that deny information about what happens to women who are captured. "

Can anyone explain this excerpt? I'm pretty tired, and cannot follow this logic.


gitmo
7 posted on 11/19/2003 10:42:44 AM PST by gitmo (Stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. -GWB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kattracks
There is absolutely no reason for women to be in combat or combat support units, PERIOD. The feminists and feminist apologists can cry and whine all they want, they cannot come up with one good reason, (key word here is "good").
8 posted on 11/19/2003 10:43:10 AM PST by ladtx ( "Remember your regiment and follow your officers." Captain Charles May, 2d Dragoons, 9 May 1846)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kattracks
Let me begin by saying I appreciate what Jessica Lynch underwent, and that I feel badly for her ordeal.

That noted, like Parker, this is among the comments I've made about not only Jessica Lynch, but anyone who joins the military without understanding that to which they are committing themselves: the defense of our nation and her people, including to the level of risking one's own life.

If you want a college education, study hard and work to earn a scholarship, or borrow money with a student loan and repay it later. Don't enlist and presume you will not be found in harm's way in your tour.

Lynch's actions placed at risk a number of our other troops who found themselves in a mission to rescue her, and it is that group of individuals in which if one looks for a hero, one will find many.
10 posted on 11/19/2003 10:45:45 AM PST by Chummy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kattracks
Last I heard, her younger sister was still planning to enlist (and probably has by now). Am I supposed to believe she "wasn't warned"? Women are not stupid and helpless. They know bad things happen in wars.
11 posted on 11/19/2003 11:08:18 AM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kattracks
We had this problem solved during WWII with the WACS, WAVES, and SPARS.

The president who put females in combat situations is a coward. If females want to serve on active duty ...fine! BUT not in combat.

You rely on the man to your right and left to protect you. Put a woman in the equation and the system of protection falls apart because everyone would be trying to protect the woman rather kill the enemy.

God made woman to be a "helpmate" for man NOT a soldier.

18 posted on 11/19/2003 11:21:59 AM PST by Luke (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kattracks
the Army never told her might put her into the combat situation

She joined the Army. While I don't think women belong in combat areas, anyone joining a military unit ought to understand the possibility of fighting.

20 posted on 11/19/2003 11:31:32 AM PST by Jemian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kattracks
After h.s. graduation my daughter began receiving Army recruiting calls. I recognized the voice as the same Army recruiter who tried to recruit my son. I asked what the call concerned. His answer? "Money for college."

A few days later my daughter told me she was thinking about going in to the Army. I asked if she felt strongly about going into battle to defend our country and fight the terrorists. Her answer? "He told me I'd get money for college."
22 posted on 11/19/2003 11:45:48 AM PST by ntnychik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kattracks
What about the decades in Israel where women serve their Country alongside their men?

LaraDisclaimer: Lara believes that some women are capable of doing everything that men can do, just as some men are not capable. Lara further believes that the standards should be the same for men and women, and very strict at that and that anyone, man or woman that can pass those stringent standards should be allowed to do the job. Lara concludes that the men and women that have a problem with it should grow up and deal with it.
24 posted on 11/19/2003 11:48:10 AM PST by LaraCroft (Grrr baby, very very grrrr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kattracks
Having women serving in military roles that puts them in harm's way may be an asinine policy. But it was implemented by an ass who was twice elected by the majority of people in this country.

Does that make the majority of the American people asses? (No response required.)
28 posted on 11/19/2003 12:17:25 PM PST by vanmorrison
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kattracks
The woman was in Supply for heaven's sake. She wasn't trained for the frontlines. Supply travels at the end. Doesn't anyone remember western movies and cowboys on a cattle drive. The chuck wagon traveled at the end. She was thrust into a situation that required either survive or die. She survived. Does that make her a hero because she survived in the face of all odds and brutality that was administered to her by the enemy. Who cares? She survived insurmountable odds and came home to her family alive. Many soldiers come home in a body bag. Give the girl her 15 minutes of fame.
33 posted on 11/19/2003 12:35:45 PM PST by lilylangtree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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: 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: kattracks
Listened to G. Gordon Liddy today and heard him say to Col Hack that Isreal does not allow women in the front lines.
Also that since the US doesn't allow women is 'combat zones' they are joinning the millitary police ranks.....big time.
What in the world is this Country coming to!
64 posted on 11/24/2003 12:51:07 PM PST by mickie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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