Nope. This has been discussed up there since the 70s or so, and there have been policy changes since then, little by little, leading up to this.@Robert LandersI can think of little more terrifying than an attack by a division of female soldiers with Automatic Weapons AND PMS.
There is nobody on these boards that hates war anymore that I do!
I worked on the Apollo project that sent Americans to the moon, and I saw just what war did to the funding for the greatest civilian project in the history of man. Instead of having bases on the moon and going on to Mars (thus leading humanity into becoming a true space faring civilization, eventually saving us from our own environmental follies) we blew expensive (both in terms of our blood, and our wealth) holes in rice paddies in Southeastern Asia. And now we did (and are still doing) the same for the deserts of Iraq, and the mountains of Afghanistan. As a great song says “When will they EVER learn!”
I love it when the more conservative members here are against governmental waste. The greatest waste that we have is in the bloated military, (a military over ten times as expensive as the next ten militaries of the world combined) that is not needed for our own public safety. We are not stopping Al Queda and other militants by going into their countries and angering them even more than they already are!
What IS needed for our safety is good police work, and good courts (within our own country) and prisons for those that would harm us!
Yes, and unfortunately (for mankind in general) like all nations we do need a creditable military deterrent against direct aggression, but we could do that for easily less than half the cost of our present military establishment. A truly great military commander and president by the name of Dwight David Eisenhower (one of our better Republican presidents) said that this country needed to beware of a bloated, expensive, and somewhat useless military/industrial complex!!
In fact, our military escapades are the greatest single recruiting methodology for such as Al Queda. How would we feel if another far more powerful military (say the Chinese for instance) were to come into this country and raise havoc with our people and infrastructure?
As for the Viet Nahm episode, not only did we eventually lose, but now that country is one of our best trading partners in South Eastern Asia.Ironically, with a budding tourist industry based a great deal on former Viet Nahm vets going back and seeing their former “enemies”!
War itself is both the greatest waste and the saddest activity of all mankind!!!!!!!
By the way, the rest of your post was terrific and totally correct!
He has two beautiful daughters, how would you reasonably think he personally feels?
But, if he were to oppose the pentagon generals in this, would you then not be among the first to castigate him for interfering in their area of prerogative?
The problem that you and the other ultra conservative people here that seem to hate the man so much have, is that when you oppose EVERY decision he makes you then begin to lose all credibility in opposing almost ANY decision he makes.
As a relative moderate, I not only do not support every decision he makes, I have never support all of the decisions that ANY president has made. And as I was born in 1942 that is quite a lot of presidencies!!
Might it be too presumptuous of me to suggest that you and some of the other ultra conservatives here possibly start to do the same. And thus actually gain credibility for those instances where your opposition actually makes reasonable sense?
To say nothing of making these boards a lot more pleasant place to visit and comment upon. Just a thought, is all…..
Mickey: just a note: after WW I, the switch to “air war” instead of soldier to soldier on the ground, has made war anything BUT “equal opportunity”, as civilians and noncombatant “collateral damage” has FAR exceeded the death of soldiers in combat. B-52’s btw were just high altitude “drones” with far less accuracy or specificity as to individual targets. (Okay, B-29’s firebombing entire cities, nuclear weapons, and ICBMs are all illustrations of “highly selective” instruments.)
Much as I find ethical problems with drones, anyone who’s seen the after effects of an arc light carpet bombing, can see they DO have some advantages if used carefully.
Thank you and Sharuniboy for your kind remarks. It is seldom that I can receive such on these blogs sometimes dominated by the sound bite remarks of the ultra conservatives.
Even just trying to be relatively even handed is sometimes seen as an insult by such posters
And strangely enough that does not make me angry, just a little sad!
@ Robert Landers – excellent comments as usual. Thank you.Mr. Morin’s cartoon fails to note that no woman will be commanded to “front line” positions. I say that in quotes as my daughter, a Major who has served in Iraq and Afghanistan went far from any “green zones”. IF a woman WANTS to serve on the line, she has to show she can pass ALL physical and mental training exercises. In the first year, women will only serve in forward support positions such as medical and evac, etc. In the second year, they will be permitted to serve with mobile howitzer units and other cannon. Mr. Morin is suggesting women will have no choice, but this is inaccurate. Women do have a choice.Respectfully,C.
Tammy Duckworth enjoyed the “honor” of flying combat helicopter missions and wound up having both legs and an arm blown off. Now a fragmentary person, she was able to serve one term in the U.S. Senate, until a right wing politician disparaged her military service and defeated her. Are there other women out there who wish to jeopardize life and limb for whatever evanescent honor it will bring them? Great! Let one of them serve in my place! I have no desire to risk getting blown into fragments, nor do I want to explode other human beings. Remember Vietnam? That was an important war, wasn’t it: 65,000 dead American kids and a couple of hundred thousand maimed or crippled for life (while Dick Cheney got five deferments to avoid combat)? We now trade with Vietnam. Folks go on vacation there. That’s insanity! Are there women crazy enough to gamble on our our next insane adventure using their bodies as collateral? I say, let ‘em, if they’re that stupid!
Mickey 13 about 11 years ago
War can be counted on for one thing, it’s an equal opportunity killer…
cjr53 about 11 years ago
This is a step forward towards equality for all. Women are not required to volunteer for military service.
cjr53 about 11 years ago
The real answer is to stop having wars.-Let’s leave Afghanistan now.
ConserveGov about 11 years ago
Looks like even super-libs like Morin aren’t too happy with the commander-in-chief anymore.
Nebulous Premium Member about 11 years ago
Nope. This has been discussed up there since the 70s or so, and there have been policy changes since then, little by little, leading up to this.@Robert LandersI can think of little more terrifying than an attack by a division of female soldiers with Automatic Weapons AND PMS.
frodo1008 about 11 years ago
In order for President Obama to make every decision for even our bloated military, he would have to be cloned literally thousands of times!
How would all of you Obama haters like that!!
frodo1008 about 11 years ago
There is nobody on these boards that hates war anymore that I do!
I worked on the Apollo project that sent Americans to the moon, and I saw just what war did to the funding for the greatest civilian project in the history of man. Instead of having bases on the moon and going on to Mars (thus leading humanity into becoming a true space faring civilization, eventually saving us from our own environmental follies) we blew expensive (both in terms of our blood, and our wealth) holes in rice paddies in Southeastern Asia. And now we did (and are still doing) the same for the deserts of Iraq, and the mountains of Afghanistan. As a great song says “When will they EVER learn!”
I love it when the more conservative members here are against governmental waste. The greatest waste that we have is in the bloated military, (a military over ten times as expensive as the next ten militaries of the world combined) that is not needed for our own public safety. We are not stopping Al Queda and other militants by going into their countries and angering them even more than they already are!
What IS needed for our safety is good police work, and good courts (within our own country) and prisons for those that would harm us!
Yes, and unfortunately (for mankind in general) like all nations we do need a creditable military deterrent against direct aggression, but we could do that for easily less than half the cost of our present military establishment. A truly great military commander and president by the name of Dwight David Eisenhower (one of our better Republican presidents) said that this country needed to beware of a bloated, expensive, and somewhat useless military/industrial complex!!
In fact, our military escapades are the greatest single recruiting methodology for such as Al Queda. How would we feel if another far more powerful military (say the Chinese for instance) were to come into this country and raise havoc with our people and infrastructure?
As for the Viet Nahm episode, not only did we eventually lose, but now that country is one of our best trading partners in South Eastern Asia.Ironically, with a budding tourist industry based a great deal on former Viet Nahm vets going back and seeing their former “enemies”!
War itself is both the greatest waste and the saddest activity of all mankind!!!!!!!
By the way, the rest of your post was terrific and totally correct!
frodo1008 about 11 years ago
He has two beautiful daughters, how would you reasonably think he personally feels?
But, if he were to oppose the pentagon generals in this, would you then not be among the first to castigate him for interfering in their area of prerogative?
The problem that you and the other ultra conservative people here that seem to hate the man so much have, is that when you oppose EVERY decision he makes you then begin to lose all credibility in opposing almost ANY decision he makes.
As a relative moderate, I not only do not support every decision he makes, I have never support all of the decisions that ANY president has made. And as I was born in 1942 that is quite a lot of presidencies!!
Might it be too presumptuous of me to suggest that you and some of the other ultra conservatives here possibly start to do the same. And thus actually gain credibility for those instances where your opposition actually makes reasonable sense?
To say nothing of making these boards a lot more pleasant place to visit and comment upon. Just a thought, is all…..
Dtroutma about 11 years ago
Mickey: just a note: after WW I, the switch to “air war” instead of soldier to soldier on the ground, has made war anything BUT “equal opportunity”, as civilians and noncombatant “collateral damage” has FAR exceeded the death of soldiers in combat. B-52’s btw were just high altitude “drones” with far less accuracy or specificity as to individual targets. (Okay, B-29’s firebombing entire cities, nuclear weapons, and ICBMs are all illustrations of “highly selective” instruments.)
Much as I find ethical problems with drones, anyone who’s seen the after effects of an arc light carpet bombing, can see they DO have some advantages if used carefully.
frodo1008 about 11 years ago
What a kind and reasonable remark, do you have anymore?
Of course, that is all well and good with you, until you are the one being eliminated by nature, then it is not so very good anymore!!
frodo1008 about 11 years ago
Thank you and Sharuniboy for your kind remarks. It is seldom that I can receive such on these blogs sometimes dominated by the sound bite remarks of the ultra conservatives.
Even just trying to be relatively even handed is sometimes seen as an insult by such posters
And strangely enough that does not make me angry, just a little sad!
chazandru about 11 years ago
@ Robert Landers – excellent comments as usual. Thank you.Mr. Morin’s cartoon fails to note that no woman will be commanded to “front line” positions. I say that in quotes as my daughter, a Major who has served in Iraq and Afghanistan went far from any “green zones”. IF a woman WANTS to serve on the line, she has to show she can pass ALL physical and mental training exercises. In the first year, women will only serve in forward support positions such as medical and evac, etc. In the second year, they will be permitted to serve with mobile howitzer units and other cannon. Mr. Morin is suggesting women will have no choice, but this is inaccurate. Women do have a choice.Respectfully,C.
Vlad Taltos about 11 years ago
No “War on Women” jokes yet? I’m disappointed.
ajhil about 11 years ago
Tammy Duckworth enjoyed the “honor” of flying combat helicopter missions and wound up having both legs and an arm blown off. Now a fragmentary person, she was able to serve one term in the U.S. Senate, until a right wing politician disparaged her military service and defeated her. Are there other women out there who wish to jeopardize life and limb for whatever evanescent honor it will bring them? Great! Let one of them serve in my place! I have no desire to risk getting blown into fragments, nor do I want to explode other human beings. Remember Vietnam? That was an important war, wasn’t it: 65,000 dead American kids and a couple of hundred thousand maimed or crippled for life (while Dick Cheney got five deferments to avoid combat)? We now trade with Vietnam. Folks go on vacation there. That’s insanity! Are there women crazy enough to gamble on our our next insane adventure using their bodies as collateral? I say, let ‘em, if they’re that stupid!