Published: Tuesday, Jan. 29 2013 12:00 a.m. MST
I'm hoping it helps us avoid wars.
A nation that puts its daughters on the battle front has lost its soul.
Strange you would mention Queen Boudica, as her ineptness caused her army of
100,000 plus to be defeated and slaughtered by 10,000 Romans.
More troops = more chances of victory in war. When blacks served,
nothing happened. When gays served, nothing happened.
Women HAVE been serving on the front lines.All we are doing is
proving that intolerance serves no purpose.
A nation that puts its' daughters on the field of battle has not lost
its' soul. As we continue to blur the lines between genders we may come to
realise that the battlefield is not a good place for daughters and sons. We may
be on the way to finding our soul.
Everyone keeps talking about the merits of opening up infantry slots to women.
Is ANYONE asking the much more important question, namely: Why does the Marine
Corps have TWO physical fitness standards?!?! If you can't do pretty darn
near a 300 Marine Corps PFT (and yes, I'm talking about the harder of the
two) and if you can't fireman carry or at least buddy drag a full grown
man, with gear, the length of a football field, than you have absolutely NO
PLACE in an infantry platoon. Period. I think getting rid of the archaic and
extremely sexist double standard PFT is LONG overdue! It's certainly more
relevant an issue than whether or not women should be allowed infantry
PaganMore troops = more chances of victory in war.When
blacks served, nothing happened.When gays served, nothing happened.
Women HAVE been serving on the front lines.All we are
doing is proving that intolerance serves no purpose.Ignorance serves
no purpose either and you are horribly ignorant to the sexual abuse that is a
huge problem with women in the military. That will only get worse.
20 years ago - I remember civilians also freaking out about letting women
serving on submarines.Perhaps if more gun-touting Soldier wanna-bee
conservatives manned up and served, women wouldn't need to.[Right - RedShirt, Mike Richards, JThompson, Mountanman, patriot, etc.?]
In fact, the more I've thought about this -- The more I believe
some "men" don't want women serving, is because since they
weren't brave or committed enough or loved their country enough to serve
themselves -- they don't want to see women showing them up.It's already bad enough having Liberal or Gay men showing them up.But to have a young woman [someone who they think should be in the kitchen,
barefoot and pregnant] doing something they can't...ouch.It's really more a matter of their pride or shame, than a woman's
The thought of my daughters and grand-daughters going through the trauma that I
have seen others experience breaks my heart. I have no doubt that their love of
country would propel them to serve any cause they feel is just. They are brave
and capable. I feel the same way about my sons and grand-sons.Re:HutteriteWhile we may not agree on what constitutes a just
cause...I applaud you for your statement "...we may come to
realise that the battlefield is not a good place for daughters and sons. We may
be on the way to finding our soul."
Men shouldn't go to war unless Congress declares it. We don't need
presidents getting us into unnecessary conflicts.If the president
exaggerates about the need to go to war, he should be prosecuted.Women are different than men and this is good. Women should not be forced to
go to war. A few may choose to go, but there should be no draft for women.
I hope this trend doesn't go on further to the practice of recruiting
children as has/is being done elsewhere. Haha! Maybe. More to the point, will
the next step be to allow women to be drafted ? A person I know well told me
that when he was helping set up selective service, one factor against drafting
women was the policy proscribing women being assigned combat duties. Now, it
seems that is no longer a barrier. Volunteering is one thing, conscription is
another. To draft women would go against what used to be a basic value of our
LDS Liberal:You are quick to mock those of us who did not serve in
the military and call us not brave or a nice way of saying coward. I graduated
High School in 74 just a year before the total withdrawal from Vietnam. My draft
lottery was #6 and I would have proudly served had I been called to do so. I do not want Women serving in combat. I don't want war. War is
hell, brutal, horrifying and sickening. Many strong, brave, valiant men
can't cope with the horror and violence and we expect to place our fair
daughters and wives in the mix of that brutality? I say we have become depraved,
violent and past feeling if we stoop so low as to thrust them into battle. It's More than OK to protect them and shield them from such things.
I wish for my daughters to seek for peace, virtue and kindness, not the ugliness
(Pagan) Ignorance serves no purpose either and you are horribly ignorant to the
sexual abuse that is a huge problem with women in the military. That will only
get worse. - Anti Bush-Obama Having served in the US military in S.
Korea I am not, in fact, ignorant of the rape rates in the US military. Chances of rape for a woman who joins the military jumps 70%. Now, do I think women should not joint the military? No. I think we should punish those who rape. Using the actions of
OTHERS, to define your actions does not reflect poorly on those who want to
serve our country... it only shows a blatant and self-evident need
to 1) promote more severe and crippling punishment for rape and 2) Support a
zero tolerance policy for those who do nothing...when it happens. I
am aware of rape in the military. And now I am going to be a better example than
you Anti. I support women in the military. I also
support punishing, rape. In the most severe and detrimental way possible. Of anyone.
@LDS Liberal'The more I believe some "men" don't
want women serving, is because since they weren't brave or committed
enough or loved their country enough to serve themselves -- they don't want
to see women showing them up.'Based on what? Did you read some
kind of study? I served in the military, but you don't have to be
ex-military to have an opinion on how the military is run. Especially if you pay
taxes. Infantry units should, without question, be closed to individuals who do
not meet very high physical fitness standards. You say some men don't want
to see women showing them up? What study did you base that on, because that is
totally ridiculous. When I lived in Quantico, even the weakest males were
required to get at the very least a 235 on their PFT. Yet, I didn't know
ONE SINGLE female Marine, on the whole base, who could do a 235 male PFT. And if
a 235 is the best you can do, you do not in any way imaginable belong in an
killpackSandy, UT@LDS LiberalI served in the USAF - we
didn't have those requirements for combat duty, so your broadbrush based
asspumtions based solely from your little knothole view from the Marines is
quite frankly, false.I remember the flak the 1st female F-16 fighter
pilot took entering combat -- 21 years ago.I remember when the 1st women
could finally serve on submarines.The requirement haven't
changed, and it's still 100% voluntary.If they don't want it, or
can't make it -- fine.But banning and forbidding someone
without even offering them the chance is discrimination, period.[Race,
Gender, Age, Religion, etc.]Don't be a bigot.
I refuse to serve in the military because I don't believe in what we are
doing overseas. I will only join if there is a war on our homeland. But my idea
of fighting for our freedoms doesn't consist of going into another country,
stealing the natural rescources and destablizing their economy by bringing then
Under U.N. control. If i'm going to die, it's going to mean something
and not be in the service of off shore banking cartels.
Look, I don't care who flies F-16s. I was talking about GROUND combat
units. I thought that's what everyone was talking about. I clearly
misunderstood you. Accept my apologies.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments