Women in combat

Yeah, I would think that the reasons for discrediting either for combat would be very different...but given that someone already posted that gay women were generally strong (sheesh), it may have been easy to combine the two in one post.

 

thjplgvp, you did a great job and explained the details very well! Message boards are noted for lack of consideration for others.

As for this senior citizen, who will draw Social Security later this year, I make no apology to the feminists for considering both ladies and sodomites as unfit to serve in spite of the constant political pressure from feminism and other liberals to advance these two groups.

And I believe that the worst mistake that Donald Rumsfeld made as Secretary of Defense under Bush was to bring his sodomite friend, the rich heir to the Seagram whiskey fortune, Steve Herbits, into the Pentagon as a private contractor in the Secretary's office. Herbits made personnel evaluations and organizational evaluations for Rumsfeld. Of what value would the opinion of a sodomite be in military matters? Sodomites by definition are mentally ill. Rumsfeld violated military rules by refusing to accept the advice of someone qualified and insisting upon the unqualified advice of sodomite activist Herbits. Here is where the ideology of liberalism failed in the war against terrorism inside the President's cabinet. Why don't the Democrats say something about this?

 

When I read your post, I was stunned. It was like reading a KKK propaganda poster all over again.

I apologize if I hurt your feelings.

However, you chose to attack the character of the female soldier. Many female soldiers are in the combat zone protecting your right to keep your prejudice to your self. You chose to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Don't attack the soldier in the combat zone when you are 'in the rear with the gear' and think that leaders will just think that your prejudice is 'cute' and give you an 'atta boy.'

If I hurt your feelings, I apologize. But, to attack women that have legally chosen to defend your freedom in the combat zone when you are 'in the rear with the gear' is extremely offensive.

They are not able to defend themselves against your prejudice . . . and your prejudice against them is not fair to them.

Courage is what is needed in the armed forces. The Air Force may be able to get a way with a little less courage than the other branches, but not by much.

Courage so little to do with 'skill,' 'intellectual speed,' or anything else. courage has everything to do with moral courage. And to try to reduce the courage that our troops need down to just reaction time as obtained by a geek in a white lab coat was ridiculous.

And if attacking a woman's intellectual 'speed' is the best justification for your prejudice that you can find, just remember that it was a woman that had the moral courage to have you born into this world.

 

My rule on America is simple:

If they were represented in the Alamo, I will defend the rights of their kind.

There were 'Mexican'-Texans, African-Texans . . . women and children.

If you are foolish enough to think that modernity with its fancy science can predict when women (and men) will or will not have to defend themselves, their families, or their fellow Americans you have not read a page in history.

 

CMG

Your post would be a great post (senior citizenship aside) for a KKK rally . . .

Don't you just hate it when your logic is twisted back on that liberal self you call a conservative?

Without women, the west would have never been populated . . . and if you think that they did not fight out here . . . ya' need to read some history.

I am not for women having to fight to defend this country - but, attacking the women folk is just (IMHO) not right.

 

A coward is a man that would send the weaker vessel to fight his wars. As I indicated in the other thread, the practice of sending women to war is literally barbaric. Combined with our new found penchant for torture, it shows how far we have fallen from anything representing Biblical morality.

 

I did not realize that there was a pre-existing thread that this prejudicial thread was posed against.

As such I may have missed the 'point' . . . of this thread.

But, I will not tolerate someone 'in the rear with the gear' using the theology from modernity to attack female soldiers. Those female soldiers are in harm's way and not here to defend their intellectual capability or lack thereof.

 

I consider you a total hypocrite on this issue, El Guero. You say that women have some sort of right to be forced into the military to die in spite of the biological evidence that they are physically less capable. Instead of dealing with the issues, you have merely attacked posters and called them names. If this is the best that you can do, then you really should just refrain from posting. The communists were the best recent example of how women were forced into physical heavy labor for the "good" of the state with the idea of the destruction of the family. Liberalism calls for the suicide of the west because it wants change for the sake of change and power for liberals only. Smearing the opposition is just part of the liberal way of doing business, as you have shown, El Guero.

 

I find it hilarious that you, of all people, would mention a "lack of consideration for others" considering how often you attack those you disagree with.

 

See what I mean? :BangHead:

 

The issue is consideration of the well-being of women. As for your intellectual ideas, Terry, I attack them at will. However, you have not found me calling you KKK or any other name with the possible exception of "liberal" since you are a liberal because my purpose is not to demonize you personally, Terry, but to show the public your errors in logic. You should not take open debate personally, Terry, nor should you say that I attack you or anyone else personally. El Guero called me KKK because I said that he did not take the humanity of women into consideration. Do you agree with this sort of tactic, Terry?

 

"Barbarism" (in the historical sense) or lack thereof is completely irrelevant to biblical morality.

When the Greeks coined the term Barbaroi, they were speaking of non-Greek-speaking nations that did not share their language or customs. It's not a biblical issue. It would go well with you to avoid the issue of "barbarian" women in combat. Take your pick...women fighters ("barbarians") or man-boy sex (the Greeks).

Above all, though, the common denominator for the "barbarians" and the Greeks was paganism.

 

I'll choose neither for they are both heinous.

 

Well, Scarlet, they are two groups that should be exclued no matter what so they are not lumped together but they are in the same boat on this particular issue.

It is a timely topic considering the recent resignation of Donald Rumsfeld and his disobedient act of insisting that Seagrams heir Steve Herbits, a sodomite activist, be empolyed in the Pentagon in the Secretary's Office the the capacity of evaluating high-ranking military officials and military and governmental organizational functions. This information was given by Herbits and others to Bob Woodward and published in Woodward's book State of Denial part III (?) about the war against terrorists.

If you would tell me that any normal female could perform the same physical tasks in combat training as a man, then the question might be more interesting. However, we all know that standards were lowered at the military academies to accomade the political idea that women are physically equal to men. So, yes, women are weaker than men.

As for their mental process, there is no doubt scientifically that women's brains work differently from men's. Or do you want to show some evidence that they work the same, Scarlett?

Women are unfit to serve in combat. They should be given the role that they had during World War II. That is, their own units and their own duties.

As for the case for sodomites, they are unfit because of mental illness. I do not advocate sending mentally ill people into combat. Nor do I advocate sending men who are not able-bodied into combat. Nor do I advocate sending children into combat.

Scarlett, in the history of the world when have women ever been used in combat in military units in large numbers and on a regular basis? I would say never. The examples are footnotes, Scarlett, in the vast military history of the world. Politics has no place in survival.

 

Scarlett, someone else above has already shown the point about the emotional question of jealousy that women embedded in the regular military units causes. That is why, Scarlett, Amazons are not wanted or needed in male military units. We don't need to rethink these issues all the time if we just reject the liberal ideology that says that everything has to be rethought and everything has to be changed all the time. Scarlett, have you read Suicide of the West? Women are denigrated in all non-Christian and non-Jewish cultures; it is those cultures and religions that you need to address. There is no need for women in the military. You, Scarlett, have not shown the need for women in the military in men's units. Scarlett, why don't you just admit that you motives are political and that you want power to tell the women in my family how they are to live, just as the communists did and the nazis did?

 

I dont think women are slow thinkers or inaccurate thinkers. I do think that they are, always thinkers. This is just my personal observation. I think men may be better about acting without thinking where women generaly always think things out. When your job is to ALWAYS follow orders I think the men have the advantage as a field solder.

In other words men are better at "shoot first, ask questions later."

I do not think women belong in combat. However I do think they have places in the military. Thinking jobs outside of battle. Women just think differently, and a when you have a situation that needs thunk-out :smilewinkgrin: you are better off having several people who think differently, all thinking from diferent perspectives.