a part of ruining the US Military….lowering standards for all volunteers….rewriting rules to hinder basic military objectives…to win victory in defeating the enemy. Transforming the mission into a new “Peace Corps”…by the Obama civilians who are anti-war, while the top military brass sits by quietly hoping to hang on to their careers.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/338772/sex-and-violence-editors-IMO this is an excellent editorial with pertinent facts and the best viewpoint with which I agree.-@King…..manning drones is not the equal to COMBAT, and IMO drones are not a battle plan for victory, and the media presents a growing protest against using drones. We do face a new type ENEMY, in a sneaky war of hidden attackers. New combat strategies beginning with Identifying the enemy is needed in link with civilian strategies to stem the rising tide of Muslims using freedoms in America to infilter and take over our system of Liberty and null and void our Constitution.
From what I have seen on these boards, it would seem that a general position of the more conservative element here is against this introduction of women into actual combat.
If that is true, then I must say that is one of those instances when I must proudly agree with the conservative element here. Should we then subject our potential wives and even mothers to the true horrors of actual combat? Is it not bad enough that we already subject our young men to such?Especially in such areas of the world where such activities have been a way of life and death for literally since the beginning of human history?
Should we now have thousands of our young women also experience the wonders of PTSD?
What next, our actual children on the front lines? Should they not also now enjoy such activities in defense of our freedoms?
I fully realize that women have already at times had to fight on the front lines as support people (particularly in the medical corps) in ALL of Americas wars. And when called upon to do so are just as affective at actual combat as men are. But a policy to actually subject them to this condition?
I may be being old fashioned and conservative here, but I say NO!!
As to these people being volunteers, just how many such volunteers do you think the military recruiters would have if they actually showed the potential young soldiers the true horrors of the kinds of combat that their joining the ground forces in such areas as Afghanistan would bring to them, the military would get?
These young people from such as the barrios of America are not told about these potential horrors of combat, but only the many advantages (such as free education in many fields) they would get in the military. And now the recruiter can also lie (to be nice, stretch the truth) to young women as well. Such progress, hooray for our side!!
But don’t worry, Republicans have assured us that women’s bodies have ways of “dealing with rape”, so this is another straw man argument! Besides, they seem to face more day to day risk from “friendly fire” in that regard than after being captured.
Night Gaunt: In WW II, in all four years, the average combat soldier saw a total of only 10 days in combat. Viet Nam saw that rise dramatically, in only a one year tour of duty. Today’s folks on repeated deployments far, far, exceeds that WW II exposure. THAT is the reason why PTSD is a greater risk.
At the same time, I do have a problem with folks who never left Qatar, never even entering actual combat zones, coming forward claiming PTSD compensation. It is also the fact many of those seek not treatment, but the financial compensation alone, that IS “bothersome”. It degrades the service of those who desperately DO need help, treatement, and yes, compensation.
Which, in civilian life, rape is a huge cause of PTSD in women. I don’t think actual combat experience would do much less, or more.
Yet still, in this country, the very men there who would deny them control of their own bodies with respect to abortion, are suddenly afraid they may be captured in war??
coraryan: You ARE aware that MEN captured, especially in Afghanistan, going back to the British occupation in the 19th century were raped, repeatedly, it was part of the “abuse and offense” seen by that culture. Many other “manly men” nations and cultures have also used homosexual rape as an affront to prisoners captured. T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) was raped by his Turkish “interrogator” in WW I.
Ask Laurena Bobbit about women reversing the procedural emperative.
‘Don’t forget bodybag.’Ooooo! Good one. I think Varvel is a fool, women have been in war-zones for a long time already; but that would make a great accessory for the other Ken & Barbie & GI Joe sets.
Carl Premium Member about 11 years ago
Don’t forget bodybag.
Chillbilly about 11 years ago
The sun just rose in the west! I agree with Mr. Ima for once.
disgustedtaxpayer about 11 years ago
a part of ruining the US Military….lowering standards for all volunteers….rewriting rules to hinder basic military objectives…to win victory in defeating the enemy. Transforming the mission into a new “Peace Corps”…by the Obama civilians who are anti-war, while the top military brass sits by quietly hoping to hang on to their careers.
disgustedtaxpayer about 11 years ago
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/338772/sex-and-violence-editors-IMO this is an excellent editorial with pertinent facts and the best viewpoint with which I agree.-@King…..manning drones is not the equal to COMBAT, and IMO drones are not a battle plan for victory, and the media presents a growing protest against using drones. We do face a new type ENEMY, in a sneaky war of hidden attackers. New combat strategies beginning with Identifying the enemy is needed in link with civilian strategies to stem the rising tide of Muslims using freedoms in America to infilter and take over our system of Liberty and null and void our Constitution.
frodo1008 about 11 years ago
From what I have seen on these boards, it would seem that a general position of the more conservative element here is against this introduction of women into actual combat.
If that is true, then I must say that is one of those instances when I must proudly agree with the conservative element here. Should we then subject our potential wives and even mothers to the true horrors of actual combat? Is it not bad enough that we already subject our young men to such?Especially in such areas of the world where such activities have been a way of life and death for literally since the beginning of human history?
Should we now have thousands of our young women also experience the wonders of PTSD?
What next, our actual children on the front lines? Should they not also now enjoy such activities in defense of our freedoms?
I fully realize that women have already at times had to fight on the front lines as support people (particularly in the medical corps) in ALL of Americas wars. And when called upon to do so are just as affective at actual combat as men are. But a policy to actually subject them to this condition?
I may be being old fashioned and conservative here, but I say NO!!
As to these people being volunteers, just how many such volunteers do you think the military recruiters would have if they actually showed the potential young soldiers the true horrors of the kinds of combat that their joining the ground forces in such areas as Afghanistan would bring to them, the military would get?
These young people from such as the barrios of America are not told about these potential horrors of combat, but only the many advantages (such as free education in many fields) they would get in the military. And now the recruiter can also lie (to be nice, stretch the truth) to young women as well. Such progress, hooray for our side!!
Dtroutma about 11 years ago
But don’t worry, Republicans have assured us that women’s bodies have ways of “dealing with rape”, so this is another straw man argument! Besides, they seem to face more day to day risk from “friendly fire” in that regard than after being captured.
Dtroutma about 11 years ago
Night Gaunt: In WW II, in all four years, the average combat soldier saw a total of only 10 days in combat. Viet Nam saw that rise dramatically, in only a one year tour of duty. Today’s folks on repeated deployments far, far, exceeds that WW II exposure. THAT is the reason why PTSD is a greater risk.
At the same time, I do have a problem with folks who never left Qatar, never even entering actual combat zones, coming forward claiming PTSD compensation. It is also the fact many of those seek not treatment, but the financial compensation alone, that IS “bothersome”. It degrades the service of those who desperately DO need help, treatement, and yes, compensation.
Which, in civilian life, rape is a huge cause of PTSD in women. I don’t think actual combat experience would do much less, or more.
Yet still, in this country, the very men there who would deny them control of their own bodies with respect to abortion, are suddenly afraid they may be captured in war??
Dtroutma about 11 years ago
coraryan: You ARE aware that MEN captured, especially in Afghanistan, going back to the British occupation in the 19th century were raped, repeatedly, it was part of the “abuse and offense” seen by that culture. Many other “manly men” nations and cultures have also used homosexual rape as an affront to prisoners captured. T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) was raped by his Turkish “interrogator” in WW I.
Ask Laurena Bobbit about women reversing the procedural emperative.
OmqR-IV.0 about 11 years ago
‘Don’t forget bodybag.’Ooooo! Good one. I think Varvel is a fool, women have been in war-zones for a long time already; but that would make a great accessory for the other Ken & Barbie & GI Joe sets.