Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Prisoners of political correctness

Discussion in 'Legal' started by 2dogs, Apr 3, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 2dogs

    2dogs Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,865
    Location:
    the city
    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31855

    Prisoners of political correctness

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Posted: April 3, 2003
    1:00 a.m. Eastern


    © 2003 WorldNetDaily.com


    Thank God Army Pfc. Jessica Lynch has been rescued from an Iraqi hospital where she was being held as a prisoner of war!

    Jessica was part of the 507th Ordnance Maintenance Co. that fell into an Iraqi ambush, which led to the deaths of some of her fellow soldiers and the capture of a least five others, including Spc. Shoshana Johnson. The fate of Pfc. Lori Piestewa and several others still is unknown.

    If your heart wasn't in your throat when you saw the pictures of Jessica on a stretcher, or a wounded Shoshana being interviewed by her captors, then it's time for a reality check.

    Something is terribly wrong when the most powerful country on earth is assigning women service members to units where they are subject to capture, rape, torture and death, while able-bodied men are stationed out of harm's way or, worse still, at home in the comfort of their living rooms.

    Guys, do you hide under the covers and send you wives downstairs if you suspect a burglar is in your home?

    We look down our noses in disgust at Saddam Hussein's disregard for human life – and his brutal treatment of women – but we are deliberately sending our young women into combat zones so that they can be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. Time for a reality check!

    The feminists celebrated the news that Johnson had been taken prisoner and put on public display. Alas, another trophy on their road to prove that men and women are interchangeable fungibles!

    "The capture of this woman," they croon, "proves women are just as brave, capable and well-trained as men and have just as much chance to survive."

    That, of course, is rubbish!

    It may not be fair that a man is, on average, six inches taller, 30 pounds heavier and – more importantly – has 42 percent more upper body strength, but it is reality. The dirty little secret in the service academies and our boot camps is that women are passed right along with the men because of "gender norming" – where the emphasis is on "equal effort," not equal results.

    While the numbers are fudged to make everything come out equal in these controlled environments, these same women will not have an equal chance to survive on the battlefield. That is why women are not supposed to be assigned to ground combat units.

    So, how is it that Lynch and Johnson – who were trained as a file clerk and cook, respectively – were assigned to a unit that was ordered into the heart of Iraq?

    A lot of the blame can be laid at the feet of our serial philandering former president, Bill Clinton, and his secretary of defense, Les Aspin. In 1994, Aspin redefined direct ground combat by eliminating "inherent risk of capture" as a factor in deciding whether a unit was judged to be "close combat" or merely "combat support" in order to open up more "career opportunities" for women.

    This was a cold, calculated political decision. Enlisted women like Lynch, Johnson and Piestewa were considered expendable in order to serve the needs of women officers, who would use their deaths and capture as stepping stones on their way to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

    The important thing to remember is this: There was no shortage of opportunities for women to serve in the military then – and there is no shortage of men who can serve in battle zones today. This is not about giving Army women the choice of whether they want to be assigned to units in battle zones. Soldiers cannot pick and choose their assignments. If women can be assigned to these units, they must be assigned to these units.

    However, it is Congress that makes the laws governing our military. Therefore, the blame must be laid squarely at the feet of these lawmakers, both Democrat and Republican, who find it a lot easier to sacrifice enlisted women than undo the damage and have to face the ire of a handful of radical feminist lawmakers they see every day on Capitol Hill.

    It is time our lawmakers forget about political correctness and face the realities of keeping the men – who must do the heavy lifting in these units – alive, and keep the women, who are providing invaluable support services, out of harm's way to the greatest degree possible. To do anything less is mere cowardice.
     
  2. edamon

    edamon Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2003
    Messages:
    38
    Location:
    eDamonville
    Although there is some truth to that article - namely the strength differences - I did read today that Jessica didn't stop returning fire, killed several iraqi's - even after being shot. Tough girl if you ask me.

    -d
     
  3. Ol' Badger

    Ol' Badger Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2003
    Messages:
    856
    Location:
    Locked in a Condo in Falls Church VA.
    Men can be raped :barf: too.
    Just can't get us preggnant thou :D
    As for fighting to the end. She is from WV! What else would you expect form a country girl like that.
    As for the Iraq's she shot? To heck with'em. I hope the ants are eat'n the eyes out!
     
  4. pax

    pax Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    9,762
    Location:
    Washington state
    Ah, yes.

    It is good for women to take action to protect themselves in their private lives. We want them to be willing to carry a gun and to know how to protect themselves and their loved ones from hostile others.

    But it is bad for women to take action to protect themselves in their public lives. We don't want them to have anything to do with carrying a gun and we want them to have nothing to do with protecting themselves and their loved ones from hostile nations.

    pax

    Hypocrisy is the most difficult and nerve-racking vice that any man can pursue; it needs an unceasing vigilance and a rare detachment of spirit. It cannot, like adultery or gluttony, be practised at spare moments; it is a whole-time job. -- W. Somerset Maugham
     
  5. TallPine

    TallPine Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    7,734
    Location:
    somewhere in the middle of Montana
    They WERE in a support service, behind the front lines, but war is war and unfortunately they got in the wrong spot and got ambushed. But even the typewriter jockey and supply clerk has to be able to fight if necessary.

    I don't like the idea of women in combat (just because I am the protective sort) but this article stinks!
     
  6. DeltaElite

    DeltaElite Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,339
    Location:
    Next to my Delta Gold Cup
    Equal rights for all.
    If anyone want to live under this countries protection they should be willing to fight.

    In fact Pax is signing up right now, to set a proud example for women in combat. ;)
     
  7. bullfrog

    bullfrog Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2003
    Messages:
    6
    Location:
    Michigan
    I don't have any problem in combat areas. As far as the writer of this saying that they only serve the purpose of women officers in promotion, I say he should talk to these enlisted women and ask them. I served with women in the Navy and as for the majority of them did not want any special treatment and wanted to be allowed to do whatever jobs their male counterparts did. And I say we should SALUTE and HONOR them.
     
  8. cuchulainn

    cuchulainn Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,297
    Location:
    Looking for a cow that Queen Meadhbh stole
    The USA has been exposing women to combat and capture for centuries -- but in the past, we just made them wear nurse's caps instead of the same lids as the men and we didn't let them fight back. ;)
     
  9. pax

    pax Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    9,762
    Location:
    Washington state
    DeltaElite,

    Does every man who thinks war is "A Man's Job," volunteer to fight?

    pax

    If one puts forward an idea to a true Englishman -- always a rash to do -- he never dreams of considering whether the idea is right or wrong. The only thing he considers of any importance is whether one believes it oneself. -- Oscar Wilde
     
  10. DeltaElite

    DeltaElite Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,339
    Location:
    Next to my Delta Gold Cup
    I did Pax, you gonna put your money where your mouth is? :D
    Talk the talk, but will you walk the walk?
    I doubt it seriously.
     
  11. pax

    pax Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    9,762
    Location:
    Washington state
    :D

    You did -- but do all of them?

    Why or why not?

    pax

    I cannot divine how it happens that the man who knows the least is the most argumentative. --Giovani della Casa
     
  12. DeltaElite

    DeltaElite Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,339
    Location:
    Next to my Delta Gold Cup
    Not all do, because talk is cheap.
    People talk a good game, but when it comes time to play they don't follow through.
    It all boils down to courage, or the lack of courage.
    Now some do have medical reasons, but most simply don't have the courage to risk anything for others and prefer to leech off of society.

    So ya gonna join up or not? ;)
     
  13. pax

    pax Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    9,762
    Location:
    Washington state
    Of course not. I'm overweight, out of shape, over age, and have too many children.

    Overweight and out of shape are fixable.

    Over age isn't.

    The kids will grow up, but by then I'll be really over age.

    Now that we've got that out of the way, can you answer my original post? -- What, if any, is the difference between expecting a woman to take responsibility for her own defense in her private life, and refusing to allow her to take responsibility for her own defense in her public life?

    pax

    I have never met a steadily logical person. -- Martha Gellhorn
     
  14. DeltaElite

    DeltaElite Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,339
    Location:
    Next to my Delta Gold Cup
    There is no difference for me, I expect all citizens of either gender to be able to provide for defense in private and in the military.
    I don't make the rules the military does.

    If one want the benefits of our society, they should be willing to take the risks involved in defending it.

    Thanks for taking my harrassment lightly, getting old and overweight sure is a pain in the patooty.
    Oh, to be young again. :D
     
  15. NewShooter78

    NewShooter78 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    678
    Location:
    Honolulu, HI
    This article is for the most part crap in my opinion. The only thing I do agree with is the lowering of standards so that more women can make it through basic is wrong. I think that it actually hampers a women's chance of servival if the SHTF. I'm all for women surving in the military, and if they can meet the standards of men, then they should be allowed to serve in the infantry.

    I used to play rugby back in my college days, and we had a women's team that could hold up with the men's team most days. I would mind having a platoon of those women in combat. I bet they'd kick mucho rear.
     
  16. George Dickel

    George Dickel Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    253
    Location:
    Clarksville, TN
    The article was a bit too critical but the part about the upper body strength issue and overall body strength is very important. Their desire and drive to perform is no different than that of a man. You have the lazy as well as the hard workers.

    Where the difference comes in is the physical abilities of the soldier. I supervised women soldiers as a squad leader and platoon sergeant while in the Military Police and later in the Field Artillery in a target acquisition battery.It would take two to three women to perform the same physical task as one man. When you are in a tactical situation and have only a few minutes to load your equipment and get out of an area you can't afford to have 3 people trying to do one persons job. It slows you down too much and could result in death, injury or capture.

    My son-in-law was with the 101st. He was a SAW gunner and when in the field and later in Iraq in 91, he had to carry his weapon, 80 lb ruck, helmet, body armor and the rest of his equipment. 15 - 20 mile marches were the norm for his unit during field training exercises while at Fort Campbell. There are very few women capable of that effort.

    Even a supply clerk is required to perform some physically demanding tasks. Try changing a flat tire on a 5 ton truck, it will bust the hump of a big man. Supply units have large crates/boxes/whatever that have to be loaded and unloaded. Again many women are not physically capable of doing this.

    Look at it this way, what is a 100 year old man going to do with a 20 year old sweet thing? The spirit is willing but the body is weak. Same situation with most women soldiers. It is not their fault they were designed the way they are but why let political correctness force the military to accept women into jobs they can't handle physically. All this will do is degrade operations and get someone killed. There is a place in the military for women but let's make sure they are physiclally capable of doing it not just because they want it.

    What PFC Lynch did was outstanding and took guts, and I'm not trying to take anything away from her. Just don't use it as an example of what women could do in a combat unit. There is far more to it than laying in a fighting position and shooting a rifle no matter how much determination they have.
     
  17. Khornet

    Khornet Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    1,861
    Location:
    NH
    Pax, buddy

    none of your points are correct, much less relevant to the article. No one implied that women can't shoot, fight, defend themselves. No one implied that they aren't capable of bravery or ferocity.

    It's a cheap dodge I encounter all too often on this topic: we who oppose women in combat do so out of contepmt, condescension, or out of a desire to oppress. And if we haven't served (I have), then we're unqualified to have an opinion.

    Guano.

    Can does not equal should. It is possible to oppose women in combat out of love and respect. I'll admit right here and now that my opposition is not founded on logic, and is not utilitarian. But logic has nothing to do with men being men, women being women, and how they feel about each other. If I didn't care about women, I wouldn't care about sending 'em into battle. And I have absolutely NO problem with them enjoying our freedoms without going into battle. Otherwise, children would have to go.
     
  18. Selfdfenz

    Selfdfenz Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,955
    Location:
    Small-sky country, again
    The bottom line is this young woman will receive combat decorations for fighting the good fight. The military is just trying to figure out which ones. Not too many women now or in the past have ever done that and she deserves to be honored for her efforts same as the men.
    May she, as all men so honored for their stuggles, wear the with pride.
    Wish she had not run out of ammo!
    End of story.

    I wonder if she will stay in the military after she has a chance to reflect on it.

    S-
     
  19. pax

    pax Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    9,762
    Location:
    Washington state
    Khornet,
    You got it wrong, man.

    I assigned no motives, either to you or to anyone else. I didn't even assign a motive to DeltaElite, though he tempted me to do so (you troublemaker DE~! ;) ). I am not interested in motives.

    I asked for a logical explanation. That's it.

    You say you have rejected logic in this case, in favor of the emotional argument. Emotional arguments are very nice, but I'm not interested in emotional arguments at the moment.

    To reiterate: I want to know what the distinction is which allows RKBA activists to believe that it is good for a woman to defend herself and her loved ones in her personal life, but bad for her to defend herself and her loved ones in her public life.

    No cheap dodges here. Just a simple question. If you read carefully, you may even note that I have taken no position -- merely pointed out a contradiction and asked for a distinction which eliminates the contradiction.

    No one has given me one yet.

    The closest we've gotten is the claim that women are not capable of doing the job. That may be true for most (not all!) women, but it doesn't answer the underlying question of whether those who are able should be kept from doing the job.

    pax

    Men love war because it allows them to look serious. Because it is the one thing that stops women laughing at them. -- John Fowles
     
  20. Moondancer

    Moondancer Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    262
    Location:
    Granger, IN
    Simple Question

    For those who say that women have no place in the military, a very simple question:

    What would a man have done differently in the exact same situation?
     
  21. Khornet

    Khornet Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    1,861
    Location:
    NH
    Pax,

    love your kids?

    Give me one logical reason why.
     
  22. pax

    pax Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    9,762
    Location:
    Washington state
    Khornet,

    I love my kids, but I don't expect anyone else to do so -- nor even to live as if they do.

    Hope you followed that.

    pax

    Argument with one who has rejected reason is like administering medicine to the dead. -- Thomas Paine
     
  23. TallPine

    TallPine Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    7,734
    Location:
    somewhere in the middle of Montana
    Run out of ammo sooner ...?

    Missed faster ...?

    :D :neener:


    Just imagine, some of those Iraqi "squirrels" last sight was being shot by a WOMAN. Maybe they will be rewarded in heaven with 72 West Virginians. :p
     
  24. Blackhawk

    Blackhawk Member In Memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,882
    Got some news for ya, Burpie.

    Enlisted men and officers are considered expendable too. EVERY member of the military is expendable, and that's just ONE of the reasons WHY the U.S. military is so formidable.

    Every member of the military learns that on or about day 2 after entering military service. But the author wouldn't know that....
    :rolleyes:
     
  25. cuchulainn

    cuchulainn Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,297
    Location:
    Looking for a cow that Queen Meadhbh stole
    TallPine,

    ROTFL. But it would only be 71 West Virginians -- they already were met by the first at the threshold. ;)


    Khornet,

    I disagree with you, but I really admire your self-awarness and honesty about your reasons :)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page