Female captive first since Pentagon altered rule

Washington Times ^ | Monday, March 24, 2003 | By Joyce Howard Price

[JohnHuang2]

One of the five U.S. soldiers captured by Iraqi forces and questioned on Iraqi television is the first female POW since the Clinton administration's military leaders repealed a rule barring servicewomen from positions with a high risk of encountering enemy fire or capture.

[JohnHuang2]

Monday, March 24, 2003

Quote of the Day by Erasmus

[ambrose]

Clinton: The "gift" that keeps on giving...

[dandelion]

What is not said is that men (including our POWs during the Gulf War) are also sexually assaulted by Saddam Hussein and his monsters. Our POWs from the Gulf war have said so.

If you can stomach it, take a good look at the photos on Drudge - look at their clothes. Those boys were brutally assaulted by these vicious thugs, and the survivors will go through pure hell before this is over. Pray for them all, now, and hold their hand spiritually while they suffer.

We must kill this satanic bastard, and all his minions.

[RDFDesertRat]

I find this utterly reprehensible. For the record, I personally participated in battle in Iraq in 1991 on a village not far from Basra where Hammurabi Division and an light Medina company had set up shop and were having their way with IRAQI women who were not Ba'ath Party. These men call themselves soldiers, and as one, my stomach heaves when I hear this. As for Clinton repealing the statute governing the proximity of female soldiery to high risk/likely to be engaged areas of a theater of operations, I can say to him, for your dedication to you Communist ideals, you quite possibly have killed this woman in Iraq today. Chew on that Billy Boy.

[WaterDragon]

I saw a photo today of the woman the Iraqi monsters hold and she looks in shock, as also do the three men. Pray for safety of these troops. And pray for the deaths of the devils who are tormenting them.

[tm22721]

If the Iraqis know what's good for them, they will not touch a hair on her head. That is unless they want to see what happens when Marines take the gloves off.

F*ck the PC war. Kill them all.

BUMP

[LPStar]

Men can be sexually abused in POW situations too. However, men can't be made pregnant in a POW situation. That's the main difference between men and women POWs that concerns me. Maybe women who can show tubal ligations should be permitted. As a woman, I hate to sound so sexist, but knowing there's a risk a female POW may get pregnant is too upsetting for me.

[The Red Zone]

Monica is not all he has raped.

[BlessedBeGod]

As a woman, I hate to sound so sexist, but knowing there's a risk a female POW may get pregnant is too upsetting for me.

No, you don't sound sexist at all. Women have no business being in these dangerous positions in the military.

[wita]

When morons rule, you get what you get. I would venture to say that the majority of leadership in all branches of the military both today and yesteryear, if they were honest with themselves, wish they had stood together and fallen on their swords over the female issue. It was forced upon them with no choice other than swallow your tongue or end your career. It IMHO is a non issue, other than nurses and admin they don't go near the service, unless you are willing to stomach the results in a conflict. Their blood runs the same color as mens, but as a national policy to allow it, is IMHO a bad national policy.

[The Red Zone]

Well the Marines can't do anything that the Pentagon doesn't order. At least not officially.

[The Red Zone]

To get a POW pregnant and then perform a cruelty based on this (what? deliver the baby and then kill it before her eyes?) would take a time frame much longer than we expect of this war.

[eeriegeno]

Clinton: The "gift" that keeps on giving...

How long will it be before Klinton is totally ostracized and held to account for all of his mis-deeds???????

[LPStar]

In this particular case, most likely. I think I was thinking of Vietnam-style POWs. Also, wasn't there some concern in the last Gulf War as to whether all the POWs had really been accounted for?

[joesbucks]

I guess I don't get it. Doesn't matter which gender is taken.....there is strong probability that they will be abused. These gals knew the risks when they volunteered for high risk positions. My guess is that they were highly counceled that there would be the possibility or sexual molestation and rape if captured.

Unfortunately, when dealing with jackels in war, there is risk no matter what the sex. The "protection" of females in our society is largely one of culture rather than necessity. Females serve well in other military's in front line capacities including Isreal.

My heart goes out to all those who have been captured or may be captured in the future.

[LoveUSA]

I disagree.

In the first Gulf War there were two women POW's and I remember that one of them was a helicopter pilot - which means that she was in and out of "dangerous" situations.

I also remember that her subordinates wouldn't stop raving about her mental strength and how her attitude helped them get through the ordeal.

[Non-Sequitur]

There were at least two women POWs that I remember in the first Gulf war. So what changed?

[The Red Zone]

We may turn some of them up when we get Iraq completely occupied.

[The Red Zone]

The "protection" of females in our society is largely one of culture rather than necessity. Females serve well in other military's in front line capacities including Isreal.

Well, it's Judeo-Christian culture. I don't think Israel would have done this except out of a strong socialistic bent (there were some kibbutzes in Israel which tried to eliminate gender distinctions altogether, IIRC).

[IrishBrigade]

The one thing I've never understood about our allegedly enlightened society is why we've buckled so consistently to an agenda as obviously toxic as militant feminism. For any good such a strident philosophy may accomplish, it is more than several times offset by dire consequences, intended or otherwise. I believe women who wish to serve their country should have every opportunity to do so, as are men, but are front line combat positions the optimal venue for them? Or will overall combat readiness be undermined by the natural proclivity of men to extend protection to a woman where a man would be, albeit with sadness, left to fend for himself?