"since when was was the American people ready to have their sons
murdered..." Since the beginning of our country, the man was expected to
bear the brunt of the brutality of war. Civilization demands the protection of
women, but our modern society has been failing to do so in the name of progress
and putting women in war zones is a continuation.
DougSOakley, UT@ Joe Blow.. If you don't know the meaning of
"victory", you have never played chess, checkers, poker, or any other
game where the "winner" is Obvious. Either than, or your vocabulary is
very limited. Your comment is akin to Obama questioning the meaning of
"the" in an amendment to the constitution.1:37 p.m. Jan. 29,
2013=========== or like questioning Bush's aircraft
acrrier landing with ballons and parades, and a banner stating; "Mission
Accomplished" declaring victory or winnervs. Obama's "Osama bin Laden is dead" announcement, turning about
face and quietly walking away from the podium.
@ Joe Blow.. If you don't know the meaning of "victory", you have
never played chess, checkers, poker, or any other game where the
"winner" is Obvious. Either than, or your vocabulary is very limited.
Your comment is akin to Obama questioning the meaning of "the" in an
amendment to the constitution.
You also have the propensity of lowering the requirements for specific jobs, and
I have even heard arguments about the damage to soldier moral....
Propensity. That's alot like say... you do NOT
have any evidence or facts. FYI? The claim that 'damage to
moral'? Was also used as more fiction when black and gay
Americans wanted to serve our country.What happened?
Nothing. As per the Pentagon study released in 11/30/10.
Facts only, please.
To "Tolstoy" I hate to break it to you, but horses only recently
returned to the US armed forces as a result of the war in Afghanistan. The
horses have been quite useful at hauling equipment into areas without roads. By
getting rid of horses, you are putting people's lives at risk.There are more reasons than just mistreatment. You also have the propensity
of lowering the requirements for specific jobs, and I have even heard arguments
about the damage to soldier moral as the women in a unit avoid deployment by
The only difference between now and before is women in combat actually get
credit for the combat duties they already performed. Nothing to see here.
I served in South Korea.We are still there.When I went
into Basic Training, there was a lovely young lady who was very effeminate...who could do more push up than any man in my company.FYI?
That's almost 200 men.
RedShirt To "Tolstoy" what do you expect when we are fighting enemies
that view us as inhuman, and not deserving of any sort of decency?You mean like urinating on corpses? If your honest their are bad folks on both
side of the line.I agree with airnaut, The boldest defenders of war
never seem to do the fighting.
@ Redshirt: "... why are you allowing Obama to cut our funding to the
military?"Because we don't need horses anymore?Top military officials have publicly stated that there are many things being
funded that they do not need or want and that do nothing to make our military
safer. Those things can be cut - thereby cutting military spending - with no
adverse effects on soldier readiness or safety.And I have read your
comments - you are in no position to be casting aspersions on anyone else. Not only is your comment the casting of aspersions, it is a deflection
and not an answer to my question. I will ask it again and frame it more fully.
Do we, as a society, have the right to remove the choice from women to serve in
combat roles in the military because they may be mistreated? As a follow-up
question, since women are already in the military and since, as you comment,
civilian women are not safe, do you really think not allowing them the choice to
serve in combat roles keeps them safe?
Is it possible for you to consider that the reason we have our military spread
all over the world is for the same reason Utah would not like Hill Air Base to
close? Is it possible that our military is simply an extension of the
commercial greed of capitalism?
Perhaps if more Neo-Cons who never served in the military had actually
"manned" up, then women wouldn't have needed to fill in the
void?Am I right? Mr. Fillerup, Mr. Bender, RedShirt, Mike Richards,
Mountanman, JThompson, patriot, LWhite, lost in DC, ect.
To "Tolstoy" what do you expect when we are fighting enemies that view
us as inhuman, and not deserving of any sort of decency?Again, if a
US reporter can be gang raped during a peaceful protest, what will happen when
militants get ahold of our female soldiers?To "atl134" as a
society, we are more prepared to see and hear of our male soldiers being
tortured and killed.If you want our soldiers to be properly equiped,
why are you allowing Obama to cut our funding to the military?
@ Redshirt: So because some men don't know how to behave properly, we
should take choice from women?
Q: What is the Republican definition of Military Victory?A: Waving a
banner saying "Mission Accomplished".
@Redshirt1701"Is the American public ready to deal with having their
daughters captured and gang raped for weeks on end?"No, but
since when was the American public ready to deal with having their sons murdered
or tortured for weeks on end? In the end though, these soldiers, male and
female, are volunteering to serve their country despite the risks to themselves.
It's their decision, not mine. I'll just support them having the
equipment they need, decent pay while they serve, decent veterans care, and by
opposing the use of our soldiers in unnecessary wars.
‘Letter: It's good to foster equality and opportunity in the
military, but victory is paramount’========Steve
Fillerup should go watch the movie "Lincoln".The first scene
involves 2 soldiers addressing the President about Vitory and equality and
opportutnity while serving valiantly in the Unions Army.They dreamed
of their people one day becoming Sergants in 10 years, Officers in 40
years, Elected officials in 75 years, and maybe even President of
the United States in 150 years.Women have been serving in combat
roles for 65 years.I know - I served with them when I was in the
Military.Military service is 100% voluntary service.Combat
roles are 100% voluntary as well.It's about time we allow equal
opportunity.Unless you in the Military, or are a woman -- you
really have no voice in the matter.Since it doesn't concern YOU.
Dart,No one is suggeting that anyone without the "necessary
strength and mindset" be permitted to do anything.
It is a victory if we can avoid conflict altogether. War often times
doesn't determine who is right......only who is left.
America has over 30,000 troops in S. Korea since the 1950's. Today is 2013.We occupied Iraq for over a decade with no tangible
results.Still in Afhganistan.The concept of
'victory' in this story is based on a false premise.Allowing blacks, gays and now service women into the military, did not change
@GZEDo you know what the front lines are? A vehicle patrol on the front
lines is one thing, and it does entail danger, and yes women have fought in our
current wars, but to say that our frontline Infantry has not fought similar
fights to our fathers and grandfathers is an insult. It may not be on the same
scale number wise, but the house to house fighting in Fallujah or Ramadi were no
walk in the park (at least our grandfathers were allowed to use flamethrowers to
clear bunkers and tunnels - they could have been quite useful in Fallujah).
Infantryman humping the mountains of Afghanistan carrying all their
equipment(weapons, body armor, ammo, food, water, communications equipment, gps,
spare barrels, first aid kit, and any other material the mission requires), have
to be in extremely good physical condition and have the necessary strength and
mindset to do so. You don't know what future wars we may fight and it is
true that the decisions were made with politics in mind and not our ability to
A failure on your part to perform due diligence regarding a subject does not
render the research on said subject moot. Additionally, a failure in
your part to look at reality instead of feasting on sour grapes, does not change
reality nor does it validate your point.
I heard this the other day, and wonder what your opinion is.Is the
American public ready to deal with having their daughters captured and gang
raped for weeks on end?If US journalists covering the
"peaceful" demonstrations in Egypt were raped, what will happen when our
enemies get their hands on female soldiers?
@lost That chip getting heavy yet?
I am not sure where the letter writer and many of the posters have been for the
last 50 years but not only has this been an ongoing discussion for a very long
time, there has also been a substantial amount of research on the subject. A
quick google search would have rendered this letter unnecessary. I started with
Dr waggeners research on the subject for the Army but feel free to start where
you would like since it is better to get informed later then never.
Didn't we just have this discussion a year about about gay men only for
absolutely nothing negative to come out of letting them serve openly?
whether it's economics or military matters, liberals do not care about
victory, they only care about us all being equal. If that means equally poor
and miserable and under the rule of some foreign power, so be it, just so long
as we are all equal (except for the liberal elite, who know SOOOOO much better
than the rest of us)
GZE is right; women have already been serving in combat roles. This is frankly
kind of a minor change.
Women have been serving in "combat" roles for years; they have just
never received the the career advancement credits nor the benefits for doing so.
This is not your grandfather's war; "front lines" are very
different than what you see in WWII movies.As far as putting
something else ahead of "equality and opportunity," what else, exactly,
would we possibly be fighting for?
"There is no substitute for victory."Does anyone even know
what constitutes "victory"?
For me, the sad part is the attitude of military officers that promotion and
power are more important than the mere defense of our nation. One of the
reasons given for women wanting to serve in combat was the requirement that
promotion to higher military positions required it. Actually I
can’t think of any reason for anyone wanting to serve in combat for other
than ulterior motives.
We should have started learning at about the time of the Korean conflict that
the concept of 'winning' a war was changing. Yet somehow we still
expected the hollywood outcome in Iraq, and it didn't happen. I think women
in military can bring it when it comes to combat. I hope they can also bring
some smarts and realistic expectations, too. That way we can either stay out of
these stupid skirmishes, or know what the outcome is when we jump into a
We could save thousands of lives, male and female, by only engaging in wars that
remove a REAL threat to our country or, in some circumstances, to its allies.
The substitute for victory? - Staying out of certain conflicts altogether.
Right on... We haven't won a war since the WW II conclusion in Japan. What
we have for leaders in the Military are a bunch of politically appointed
"yes men".Generals the like of Patton or MacArthur are ahcient
history. Admirals the likes of Burke and Nimitz can't be found. If we
were truly supporting our men/women in univorm, we would be electing people to
high office that would only use them for defense and then give them the tools to
"win" the argument decisively!
Does this mean that women need to register with the Selective Service and be
eligible for the draft? Otherwise I feel discriminated agianst!