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

Skip to comments.

Could women in combat mean fewer wars?
washingtonpost.com ^ | February 6, 2013 | Sally Quinn

Posted on 02/06/2013 1:12:03 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last

1 posted on 02/06/2013 1:12:06 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

Is this a trick question?....................


2 posted on 02/06/2013 1:13:01 PM PST by Red Badger (Lincoln freed the slaves. Obama just got them ALL back......................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

What a moran*

* yes, I spelled it wrong on purpose.


3 posted on 02/06/2013 1:25:26 PM PST by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

Yes. Well at least for the country that puts its women in combat. Once you loose a war or two real bad, you don’t have a country to defend anymore.

Therefore, no more war for that country. One less country that can go to war could possibly mean less wars.


4 posted on 02/06/2013 1:25:32 PM PST by Blue Collar Christian (Pray for revival. <BCC><)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blue Collar Christian

“The opposite of war isn’t peace. It’s slavery.” - Capt. James T. Kirk


5 posted on 02/06/2013 1:27:58 PM PST by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
It probably means America will be generally more reluctant to send its soldiers to war. It also likely means our enemies will be emboldened to war against us.

So to the person who think America is the instigator of all the world's conflicts the answer is yes. To the rest of us, probably the opposite is true.

6 posted on 02/06/2013 1:28:19 PM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blue Collar Christian
Yes. Well at least for the country that puts its women in combat.....

It seems that you summed up all of the main points rather nicely.

7 posted on 02/06/2013 1:28:35 PM PST by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

That short article was a pile of gibberish, ramblings, contradictions, inaccuracies, ignorance, just useless except as propaganda.


8 posted on 02/06/2013 1:29:08 PM PST by ansel12 (Romney is a longtime supporter of homosexualizing the Boy Scouts (and the military).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

Because women are so totally peace loving and utterly immune from conflict or violence. / SARC sarcsarcsarcsarcsarc


9 posted on 02/06/2013 1:30:49 PM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy

BTW, from my recollection in Jr. High School when Vietnam was still going on. Guys in my neighborhood got Drafted. The Army doesn’t ask Draftees if they WANT to go into Combat.


10 posted on 02/06/2013 1:31:58 PM PST by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

Um, no. Once the Communist get a social agenda item they like to use it, show it off, get their payback.


11 posted on 02/06/2013 1:33:39 PM PST by CodeToad (Liberals are bloodsucking ticks. We need to light the matchstick to burn them off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

How does someone that stupid get published in a major newspaper?


12 posted on 02/06/2013 1:36:08 PM PST by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
Is this a trick question?....................

No, it's just a monumentally stupid one.

I guess that there are an increasing number of people whose long-term memories ended on 9/10/2001, then resumed on 9/12/2001, and had no idea who destroyed the WTC towers, attacked the Pentagon, or crashed an airliner in a field in Shanksville, PA sometime in the interim. Thousands of Americans died sometime between those 2 days, but we have no idea why.

Anyway, the catchphrase in today's State Department is that it 'just doesn't matter'. Nothing to see here - move along, and no more imperialist aggressions against historically oppressed peoples. /s

13 posted on 02/06/2013 1:37:40 PM PST by bassmaner (Hey commies: I am a white male, and I am guilty of NOTHING! Sell your 'white guilt' elsewhere.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
Yes the article was amateurish and unintelligent, but I think it exposes the real motivation for sending women into combat. Feminists who want women in combat are the same code pinko types who are against the wars in the first place. They are commie peaceniks infiltrating the military to undermine the war effort.
14 posted on 02/06/2013 1:42:10 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

UM....doesn’t she OWN the newspaper? (via her deceased husband)


15 posted on 02/06/2013 1:44:37 PM PST by goodnesswins (R.I.P. Doherty, Smith, Stevens, Woods.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

Naw, it just means we’ll lose.


16 posted on 02/06/2013 1:51:42 PM PST by bboop (does not suffer fools gladly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

Nuclear bombs meant fewer wars.


17 posted on 02/06/2013 1:52:36 PM PST by a fool in paradise (America 2013 - STUCK ON STUPID)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

I wonder if they realize that is the ultimate anti-women in the military, argument.

The last thing a free nation wants is for it’s military to become independent and non-responsive to commands of it’s people and leaders and to start deciding policy on it’s own.


18 posted on 02/06/2013 1:56:18 PM PST by ansel12 (Romney is a longtime supporter of homosexualizing the Boy Scouts (and the military).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
"Could women in combat mean fewer wars?"

Many feminists have said exactly that.


19 posted on 02/06/2013 2:13:38 PM PST by familyop (We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of rotten politics smelled around the planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Prénoms in the foxhole oughta really help in combat.
I can just hear it, Platoon Leader, “Charge that bunker”. reply, “OK Sarge as soon as we finish running off this batch of wool”.
20 posted on 02/06/2013 2:17:10 PM PST by X-spurt (Republic of Texas, Come and Take It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: familyop

” If women ran the world we wouldn’t have wars, just intense negotiations every 28 days.” - Robin Williams


21 posted on 02/06/2013 2:17:39 PM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

OK, Sally Quinn, here’s the deal: the men have been doing all the heavy lifting fighting in wars. It’s time to give them a rest and let loudmouthed feminists like you demonstrate female abilities to die, be maimed for life, and suffer PTSD.

Effective immediately all women and gays will be formed into combat units and rotated into war areas to replace male units engaged in ground combat. The males will stand down and watch the girls perform. How’s that? How many women and gays signed up to do this: become cannon fodder? Not any I’ll bet.


22 posted on 02/06/2013 2:30:07 PM PST by MasterGunner01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

Leftards really are children. Malevolent children, but children nonetheless.


23 posted on 02/06/2013 2:30:36 PM PST by x1stcav (Man up! We're all going to have to become Samuel Whittemores.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

First off Sally, all women will now need to register for the draft, get used to that. Secondly, dear doyen of the DC salons, less war or not, when it comes, the chances of us losing in combat are now greater. That’s reality Sally, sorry if it flies in the face of your cherished notions and the mindless drivel of your Chardonnay friends.


24 posted on 02/06/2013 2:45:29 PM PST by AdaGray (squi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdaGray

Now that soldiers will be seeing fewer pounds in their packs, fewer miles on the jog, fewer push ups and sit ups can we conclusively say our troops are going to be less effective now? Especially when entire units are combat unready due to pregnancy or when men die to protect the women??


25 posted on 02/06/2013 2:48:20 PM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

Sure, we can surrender right off the bat because we can’t fight back.


26 posted on 02/06/2013 2:49:50 PM PST by kaehurowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: familyop

What they really mean is that when everyone’s daughter is subject to being drafted and sent into combat America’s helicopter parents will all join Code Pink and the nation will find it impossible to go to war amidst the never-ending replay of 1968.


27 posted on 02/06/2013 2:56:44 PM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Relevant...sort of...
28 posted on 02/06/2013 2:58:37 PM PST by Dallas59 (America died a little bit more on 11/6/2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

They are commie peaceniks infiltrating the military to undermine the war effort.

&&
Well, sort of. Their intent is to undermine our Western heritage, to dismantle our Judeo-Christian value system, to destroy the fighting capability of our military. But their ultimate goal is not peace but the annihilation of our Constitutional republic so that they can put their Marxist utopia in place. They dream of an America where collectivism, atheism, and pansexuality are all an accepted part of everyday life.


29 posted on 02/06/2013 3:00:20 PM PST by Bigg Red (Restore us, O God of hosts; let your face shine, that we may be saved! -Ps80)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

If we have enough trouble with a conventional war, then nukes will have to be used. An enemy might even counter-launch on our cities. Anti-defense lefties don’t think very far ahead on some things, do they.


30 posted on 02/06/2013 3:03:40 PM PST by familyop (We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of rotten politics smelled around the planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

Sure, I agree. The Army with the women loses quicker and the one without dominates the battlefield.


31 posted on 02/06/2013 3:05:29 PM PST by vetvetdoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

They might be shorter wars.
And not in a good way.


32 posted on 02/06/2013 3:21:47 PM PST by servo1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Nope—More Wars as our foes will see this as a sign of weakness. Women should never be captured alive in battle. Save the last bullet for themselves. i predict more defeats as well with lines of female POWs going into sex slavery in Iran. I hope I am wrong about this. BUT I don’t think so.


33 posted on 02/06/2013 3:39:25 PM PST by Forward the Light Brigade (Into the Jaws of H*ll)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Few people would object to women and men being called up to serve in some capacity...

I stopped reading about there. She means a draft, and that claim is so far from the truth it is akin to labeling light as dark.

34 posted on 02/06/2013 3:57:52 PM PST by Utilizer (What does not kill you... -can sometimes damage you QUITE severely.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

Sally Quinn has been certifiably insane since she was born. Imagine a 50 IQ leftist hairy female ape defining the parameters where combat is okay for woman.

HAHAHAHA!

Go figure out how to pop the cap on your flea powder bottle, Sally.


35 posted on 02/06/2013 4:06:31 PM PST by sergeantdave (The FBI has declared war on the Marine Corps)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blue Collar Christian
Once you loose a war or two real bad...

I will finish that thought a bit more concisely for you, young fellar: "Once you loose a war or two real bad --and let loose the Dogs of War, whosoever was on the receiving end of such utter woe is henceforth deemed to be unworthy of any further dissuasion, as he will be in grievous pain and therefore unwilling to initiate any further difficulties lest he be afflicted with yet more sorrows."

You can "qote" that if you like. (Yes, the misspelling is intentional)

36 posted on 02/06/2013 4:08:22 PM PST by Utilizer (What does not kill you... -can sometimes damage you QUITE severely.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

I guess she never heard of females deliberately getting pregnant to avoid getting rotated forward or to get out of a rotation. After all, being on point or pulling scout duty is really hard and just too much to ask. (/sarc)


37 posted on 02/06/2013 4:14:53 PM PST by Utilizer (What does not kill you... -can sometimes damage you QUITE severely.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

To answer the headline: WTF? No. Why would it?

And end the draft, it’s a dinosaur.


38 posted on 02/06/2013 5:59:12 PM PST by Impy (All in favor of Harry Reid meeting Mr. Mayhem?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
The idea of a draft is pretty much off of the table, but if it were ever to be reinstated because of a serious attack on our homeland not everyone drafted would go into combat.

Lots of problems in these statements.

1) The draft is implemented when there is an inadequate supply of personnel for the military in the pipeline to serve military requirements of the nation.

2) It takes longer to train and equip raw draftees, than even an all volunteer force, but that still doesn't preclude the logistical domain where a large supply of personnel might be required for a lengthy conflict and insufficient time is available to market for those skill sets.

3) The supply of manpower to the warfighters generally flows from Active Regulars, to active Reserves, to inactive reserves, to volunteers new recruits to draftees. Each group may take 90-180 more days to field than their predecessors, depending upon the force requirements. It all depends upon the situation.

4) The activation of the draft isn't only conditioned upon an attack upon our homeland. Such a condition arguably might discourage the draft, as it would complicate internal lines of communication when existing labor resources might be better devoted to their current industry. Conversely, it might be more prudent to implement a draft to fight a foreign war, while on foreign shores, in a lengthy conflict, when the existing population is underemployed or unemployed.

Combat should be reserved for those who volunteer.

False again. Self-defense is not only reserved for those who elect to exercise that opinion. It is a right of all people. Very few people want to go into harm's way. Many give argument that the only reason they go into battle knowing many will not return is because of duty, orders, consequences should they resist such orders.

More importantly, there generally is insufficient time to command by popular opinion when war breaks out and orders are being issued.

If there is a war the majority of Americans believe is worth fighting, there would be no shortage of men and women willing to sign up for battle.

False again. In many situations, there probably will be a patriotic movement to volunteer for military service, but strategically, a war worth fighting might not provide America with the circumstances to allow us the time or resources to volunteer to oppose them. We might not know who our enemies are until it is nearly too late.

Even if enough time and resources are available, they must be organized to be brought to bear at the right time and place with adequate reserves to complete the mission. Volunteers after hostilities begin, generally are not employed for 180 to 360 days after the conflict begins, and even then they are green and generally not a balanced independently operable fighting force in modern tactics and operational art.

If not, we shouldn’t be in it. Period.

Again false. If not,..this might be the condition of those who are losers, also called the vanquished, those cast into slavery, slaughtered at the whim of their aggressors. Unlike the freedom exercised in her opinions, the finality of being conquered will be much more irreversible than the author's unequivocal, "Period."

39 posted on 02/06/2013 7:06:15 PM PST by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Tail-end of her article:

"War is a terrible thing. Nobody should ever have to fight in one."

1) War is described as being terrible for very real reasons, but not for the reasons I perceive the author means.

War is not promoted by those who have fought in them, not generally because of violence, but because of the lack of rational cause for the consequential mayhem, and the inconsequential mayhem in even the most rationally planned endeavors.

The highest percentage of casualties and fatalities in warfare is always suffered by the noncombatants in the vicinity of warfare. That's why there are refugees from combat zones.

If war exists, it is in the best interest of those directly involved to be able to fight in them to defend their interests. Those who don't fight in them, and should, are either unprepared victims or cowards and neither are victors.

The author reminds me of the French position in WWII. Fighting for romantic liberty, but undisciplined to plan, organize, and operate with virtue.

40 posted on 02/06/2013 7:26:52 PM PST by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

Answer: NO. Once the females of one army see females of another wearing the same dress...look out!


41 posted on 02/06/2013 7:31:36 PM PST by Fledermaus (I'm done with the GOP. Let them wither and die. Let's start over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fledermaus

Infantry in combat have heightened physical senses.

Don’t count on a female ambush of a male patrol with the amount of estrogen in the air.


42 posted on 02/06/2013 7:33:30 PM PST by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Fledermaus

B*tch STOLE MY LOOK!


43 posted on 02/06/2013 7:54:20 PM PST by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

If people (not the poster) are going to ask dumb questions, but ask them seriously, then let’s ask more than just one:

1. If women are allowed in combat, could this mean war over more superficial reasons than before?

2. If women are allowed in combat, could this mean more wars or more combat activity because of certain times of the month?

3. If women are allowed in combat, could this mean more wars based on feelings and emotions?

Now let’s ask some real questions:

4. If women are allowed in combat, could this mean now we’ll have commanders and squad leaders more reluctant to put certain soldiers under their command in the field because they’re women?

5. What if a commander treats all combat soliders equally and most or all of his female soldiers die in combat? What’s that officer’s career going to look like?


44 posted on 02/06/2013 8:37:25 PM PST by Secret Agent Man (I can neither confirm or deny that; even if I could, I couldn't - it's classified.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Could women in combat mean fewer wars?

The question is fatally flawed because it is falsely premised. The question presumes that war is a result primarily rooted in US aggression -WRONG. The US wages war against aggressors and threats.

The number of wars waged will remain the same ALTHOUGH women in combat will necessarily translate into more women dead and far more women injured. THIS in addition to waging war with women in combat against male enemies who could care less about 'equality' and 'fairness'. The only 'equality' and 'fairness' that will be evidenced in combat will be that women will be just as dead and injured as the men.

War is unfair as in the fairer sex will get unfairly decimated.

45 posted on 02/06/2013 9:49:20 PM PST by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
(Art.) I believe everyone should be required to sign up for selective service.

Easy for you to say, Sally -- you airhead (famous airhead) -- now that you're way past the age when you might actually be asked to serve!

Conscription of women is another liberal fast-track to civilizational suicide. No wonder they call it "the death culture". Yeah, right, let's get our future mothers maimed, killed off, unable to bear, or screwed up with military stress problems and trying to raise kids anyway. Yeah, let's sign up for a big, fat slab of that.

46 posted on 02/07/2013 1:38:27 AM PST by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBeers
The US wages war against aggressors and threats.

Correctamundo bump.

The only possible reason for demanding that women be drafted for service in combat is a desire to spot the enemy an important advantage, which in turn rests on a buried desire that the U.S. lose its future wars against aggressors and predator nations and NGO's.

Advocacy of women in the draft and in combat units is a Judas offering. People who advocate these measures should be cut off from society, since they've already cut themselves off from faithful support of their fellow-citizens.

47 posted on 02/07/2013 1:44:36 AM PST by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Impy
And end the draft, it’s a dinosaur.

Actually, no, it has problems but you still need a way to mobilize.

Both the 1907 National Guard Act (written by Teddy Roosevelt to address what he felt were some problems with restrictions on his ability to "conduct foreign policy" by sending Militia units overseas, standing them up as nationalized forces for as long as he needed them) and the draft itself have constitutional problems. Those need to be addressed.

But in the nuclear age, we have to be able to react quickly, or die by failing to do so. This all needs to be dealt with, within the framework of the Founding and Original Intent.

If it is felt that Original Intent of the Framers was inadequate to the current threat environment, the deficiencies, if any are found in the Constitution, would have to be dealt with by amendment.

48 posted on 02/07/2013 1:52:37 AM PST by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy

BUMP! to you.

Pacifism and appeasement are treason!


49 posted on 02/07/2013 6:08:47 AM PST by Blue Collar Christian (Pray for revival. <BCC><)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: x1stcav

There was a Twilight Zone (or something similar) episode where a young boy had these extraordinary powers to punish anyone that upset him, and his family was terrified of him, and gave him anything he wanted, and he still wasn’t happy.

That is what leftists with power are.


50 posted on 02/07/2013 6:11:33 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 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