AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2005 > January > 21 > Entry
Should the U.S. military send women into ground combat?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
Last week, President Bush made headlines when he reaffirmed that women should not be called into ground combat. Women could fly fighter jets and combat helicopters, but he opposed any change to the long-standing restriction on ground combat.
The problem is that asymmetrical warfare - in which a conventional military confronts a loose insurgency - redefines “combat.” The front lines aren’t lines at all but points all over the map at which the insurgents choose to strike - including support and supply positions. I strongly oppose women in ground infantry positions, but find myself at odds with some conservatives in believing that women should be able to serve their country in other positions that might end up being dangerous.
Now, contrary to the way the media often play the Iraq war, the U.S. has confronted asymmetrical warfare throughout our history, looking back to Vietnam, Korea, and even the Revolutionary War, when American patriots were the ones attacking from the shadows. But the Iraq war is the first asymmetrical conflict to have introduced women in large numbers, and our military hasn’t yet come to grips with how exactly to implement the women-in-combat prohibition.
In Vietnam, women comprised only 1.4 percent of the military, largely in administrative or nursing positions. Today, that figure is greater than 15 percent, and women are machinists, supply officers and combat pilots. Private Jessica Lynch, famously captured by the Iraqis in 2003, was not with front-line ground combat troops, but her supply convoy found itself decimated by combat nonetheless.
Such outcomes are tragic, but women should not be prevented from making a wartime contribution just because it is risky. Indeed, following the stellar performance of women in the first Gulf War, the Defense Department in 1994 changed its policy, saying no jobs would be closed to women (except ground combat) just because they were dangerous.
That lone exception must remain intact, not because ground combat is somehow “too” dangerous for women, but because the inclusion of women would inevitably make it more dangerous and difficult for everyone else. There’s no way around the reality that when it comes to the physical demands of war, even the strongest, most conditioned female soldiers usually just can’t keep up with even the most average male soldiers. There’s also no way around the fact that men have a built-in conditioning to be more protective of women than of other men, and that instinct could endanger both parties during a time when they need to be single-mindedly focused on the task at hand.
Many of us can-do women rebel against the idea that that there are some things that it just wouldn’t be right for us to do, but wishing it were otherwise won’t make it so. It is illuminating to realize that the enlisted women who are the closest to these realities overwhelmingly believe (71 percent) that women shouldn’t serve in ANY combat positions, much less ground combat. I’ll take my cue from them.
Rebuttal
Shaunti provides statistics on the growth of females in combat but doesn’t do the same when she makes the blanket statement that the best of female soldiers “can’t keep up” with the most average of male soldiers. I’m a firm believer in gender diversity, although I do understand the natural impulse to segregate people into categories. Dismissing ambiguity in sweeping generalizations makes life simple. People can be assessed by a snap decision.
The reality is that men and women run the gamut of masculinity and femininity. One such example is Nana Hatun, who “fought so gallantly in the 1877-1878 Ottoman-Russian War that a memorial was erected in remembrance of her courage and patriotism in Erzurum in Eastern Turkey,” says the Women’s Research & Education Institute.
I’m not arguing that women are physically stronger than men. But there is no evidence that men are mentally stronger than women. And even if there were evidence to that effect, there is still a diversity of expressions of “masculine” and “feminine”. There are women I’ve known who could not only kick my butt but the collective butts of men I know, and there are men who embody the weakling stereotype. We all have acquaintances that defy gender stereotypes. If we’re talking about generalities, Shaunti is right. Yet, when we make generalizations and decide policy on those assumptions we’re guilty of discrimination. There are women, albeit not the majority, who are not only adequate but better fighters than the average male. Just because the majority of women may not be better fighters than men doesn’t mean we pass laws based on majority assumptions.
Shaunti argues that “men have a built-in conditioning to be more protective of women”. Where does Shaunti live? We hear of female soldiers being harassed and raped by their so-called brethren protectors in the news regularly. Add to the mix the holocaust of the female dead we hear about on the news every day, the victims of a jealous or pathological husband or boyfriend, and such claims quickly crumble. Men are as much destroyers as protectors. There is no natural tendency in men to protect women, anymore than there is a natural tendency for them to destroy.
And there is no greater skill in pulling the trigger of a gun in a male than a female. Or is there a study I haven’t heard of yet? Are our fingers too tiny? Some men may be socialized to hunt and shoot guns, but that doesn’t make them naturally better at target shooting.
Integrating women into the ranks of combat soldiers could prove a measure of needed balance. OK, so we didn’t see that in the notorious photographs in Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison where women were as sadistic as their male counterparts as they terrorized their prisoners with a sick fascination with power. But this snag only bolsters my point: Women aren’t the white to men’s black; women and men aren’t opposites but complements. And they would complement men in combat just as they do in the home, the place where conservatives find the most comfort when putting women in their place.
Unlike Shaunti, I don’t take my cue from what the masses think about women in the military. I take my cue from my conscience.
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By Patrick
January 24, 2005 07:35 AM | Link to this
Yes, women should be in ground combat. If you want “equality of the sexes” then it should be across the board. You can’t say “women are equal, but only in certain situations.” I am all for equal rights and for women doing the same jobs as men.
By Brian Curtis
January 24, 2005 08:14 AM | Link to this
I agree. One bizarre argument I’ve heard is that the prospect of young women in warfare is “appalling.” Gee, I guess the prospect of young MEN getting shot and killed just doesn’t bother us?
Back when wars were fought with swords and armor, upper-body strength actually mattered. Now wars are fought with triggers, targeting systems, and steering wheels. Why should women be excluded from that and still claim “equality of the sexes”?
I’m waiting for someone to bring up the tired cliche, “Men start wars, so why should women have to fight them?” Let’s clarify: Rich white men start wars… so why should poor blacks have to die in them?
By RC
January 24, 2005 08:37 AM | Link to this
Any woman or man who voted for Bush should automatically be required to serve in combat.
By Alan
January 24, 2005 09:09 AM | Link to this
Ground combat still requires physical strength - the weapon, ammo, and all the other things a soldier must carry is quite heavy and is probably beyond the strength of most women, However, if a woman passes the SAME (not diluted) strength and combat training as the men - I say let them go for it!
By Archie
January 24, 2005 09:13 AM | Link to this
I think you look at skills and the people best suited for ground combat should engage in it. Maybe there is a way for women to engage in ground combat and maybe not. I know this much that war is not a philosophical battle and people’s lives are on the line so whatever is done needs to be prudent and not just something to settle an argument. If women can drive tanks and do their thing then let them do it and if certain missions involve running to a certain point and women can keep up then let them do it. I do think women should do enough to earn the benefits of the military but equality does not mean you have to do the exact same thing as men. Heck I can’t type as fast as my spouse but maybe some men can so if you were choosing a secretary with a need for typing speed you wouldn’t choose me but the guy with the required speed. That’s how this debate needs to be looked at and it’s not an easy answer available.
By Tyler Kiehle
January 24, 2005 09:20 AM | Link to this
I agree that women should be included in ground combat, just so I don’t have to listen to pointless drivel like this opinion column. I can’t beleive the women’s movement is in such dire need to find anything that is still forbidden to them in this modern emasculating culture, that they are fighting to get the chance to die for their country. I for one, am more that willing to let anyone, a woman, an illegal immigrant, anyone fight and die for their country. Women are at least as vicious as men, so let them fight, if for nothing else than to let them get their agression out on some other man than me.
By Lyrazel
January 24, 2005 09:21 AM | Link to this
Shaunti O my my my my my…women in combat cant take personal days can they? The —I want a day off for sunshine—just wont work as an excuse…perhaps thats why you cant comprehend why women would want to be on the front lines defending their country. Yet, I am sure you are comfortable with women police officers, right? Second, you seem lost in WWII comparisons. John Wayne leading his troops on a suicide mission giving it up for the gipper—The big trench warfare, the front lines and fox holes bear small resemblence to the Iraq war—and we arent even AT war with Iraq—we are keeping peace…right? So how does driving a humvee as part of a motor pool assigned to move cargo through Iraq—with all the roadside bombers—NOT qualify already as combat action? Believe it, regardless of such backward thinking, women are already serving on the front lines—the definition front-line is now vague because there IS no front line in a guerilla war. When push comes to shove women do have the mettle for the job, dont care if their periods get in the way, dont flinch when they break a nail, and certainly know their way around torture like experts.
Finally I have to ask is there more resistance from US military against a woman serving in combat than a gay person serving in combat?
Brian, let us not forget: Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans and the thousands of middle class men and women who have died in wars who were drafted or volunteered to defend this country.
To quote Voltaire, “Murder is a sin…unless its with trumpets.”
By Neidhardt Buell
January 24, 2005 09:27 AM | Link to this
It has already been done. During World War 2 800,000 Russian women served alongside of their male counterparts in front line roles. There are many references in German military records of the unbelievable tenacity of female fighters. They fought in all units as scouts, snipers, fighter pilots, tanks you name it. There are several Russian female fighter aces (Lily Litvak and Katya Budanova) that are long deserving of world wide recognition.
As far as overcoming the instinct to defend women goes, that is what basic training is about, overcoming you instincts. It will serve those males so encumbered very well.
‘www.gendergap.com/military/Warriors-2.htm’
By norman
January 24, 2005 09:38 AM | Link to this
RC: good point about making Bush voters go to war. In every war those declaring war have never gone. I think Bush and his entourage should be given badly equipped humvies and sent out from Baghdad to Ramadi or Heet where they could see real action.
It was so criminal to vote for Bush that I would entertain more penalties on these foolish voters.
By Dmones
January 24, 2005 09:52 AM | Link to this
I think that as long as women, or anyone for that matter, can pass the same test they should be able to go and defend their country. The only thing that I would be concerned with is women being taken as prisoners and being raped or forced to peform sexual acts. I back our women or any American that would lay his life on the line for his country as long as he/she will not hinder his comrades or cause detriment to the team by being a “loose” link.
By Whiley
January 24, 2005 10:09 AM | Link to this
Fear of being kidnapped, raped or forced to peform sexual acts?? We are already used to that daily constant threat. (Thanks guys for keeping us safe from that in our own country.)
By tony
January 24, 2005 10:48 AM | Link to this
Hell yes, women should be allowed to fight, and I believe we should put Diane on the front line. That would scare the pants off the enemy, if nothing else.
By Marshall
January 24, 2005 11:26 AM | Link to this
Yay! Let’s put the Bush voters on the front line! While we’re at it, let’s push Bush on the front line!
By Marion
January 24, 2005 11:34 AM | Link to this
My sister graduated from West Point near the top of her class. She was not allowed to “go Infantry” so she entered the Military Police to be as close to the action as possible. She is now serving in Iraq and emailed us today that she was going on a convoy to Baghdad. Today is her birthday. Do I worry about her? Yes. Do I worry about the insurgents if they take her captive? Yes. They’ve yet to run across a female like my sister.
By Ballard
January 24, 2005 11:49 AM | Link to this
Why not. A lot of women voted for Bush, so let them enjoy the war too. Don’t you think Bush’s daughters should be on the front line!
By Dustie
January 24, 2005 12:03 PM | Link to this
Norman & Marshall—-Must be tough to be unrecoverable sore losers. Did you want the elections to be like the original one in Ukraine to get Kerry elected? Kerry lost, you know. And no matter how many times you complain and call voters dumb in your political vendettas, Bush still won. Please try to stay on the subject which is “Should the U.S. Military send women into ground combat?” That is “yes” and always has been from Molly Pitcher right up to Lori Pistewa. And in case you haven’t noticed, Bush voters are already on the front line.
By Dmones
January 24, 2005 12:20 PM | Link to this
How many times do we have to listen to this nonsense rhetoric of why doesn’t George Bush or his daughters join the front line? Lets try this novelty idea again because it seems so hard for people to understand. The people who are at war right now are there because THEY SIGNED UP FOR THE MILITARY!!! No one forced them to. If there was a draft, and I know you Bush haters are going to jump to another conversation and say there is going to be a draft even thought the idea was brought up by a democrat Charlie Rangel, I could understand 100% someone complaining about fighting in a war that they don’t believe in. That is not the case at this time. It’s like me signing up for basketball, then getting mad at the coach because he puts me in to play basketball. What was that coach thinking? The reason I have not ever signed up for the armed forces, even though I love the Air Force, is because there might be a war, like this one, that I would not want to fight in. When you sign up for the armed forces there is not a disclaimer stating you can choose when you want to fight. Also, stop putting it all on Bush. Lets not forget that you have to get approval from Congress to go to war, which I think the vote was 73-0, to go to war. So let’s take this one step at a time… If you sign up for a basketball team, this might be a stretch but you might have to play basketball. If you sign up for the chess time……you might have to play chess. If you sign up for the Armed forces, go figure… you might have to go to war.
Norman- ” RC: good point about making Bush voters go to war. In every war those declaring war have never gone. I think Bush and his entourage should be given badly equipped humvies and sent out from Baghdad to Ramadi or Heet where they could see real action.”
Why? Bush voters did not sign up for the military. Where you also on the message board asking Bill Clinton voters to go to war when we went into Kosovo? Did you get carpal tunnel for writing so much that Clinton should be in one of the jets in Kosovo? I don’t think so. Your bias is so obvious.
Ballard- “Don’t you think Bush’s daughters should be on the front line!”
No. Should your children be on the front line? No. They didn’t sign up and neither did the Bush daughters. I’m sure you were writing the White House massive amount of letters stating Chelsea should be “in the front lines” at Kosovo. Bias as usual.
To sum this up I’m not a Republican and I don’t agree with the war in Iraq. I’m a libertarian so before you make assumptions that I back Bush 100% I thought I would make that clear. I enjoy pointing out how people are bias to their political parties and don’t apply their same rules to their own candidates. Or, how Bush bashing is so popular and people love to chime in.
By Akeya
January 24, 2005 12:25 PM | Link to this
IN a perfect world we wouldn’t need frontlines. But we don’t live in a perfect world, so….
I think that women should be allowed to participate in whatever area they are needed. If there is a test, I also believe that women should have to pass those tests, just as men do. Women’s strengths can be used on the frontlines, also.
How will we be taken seriously unless we are treated the same as our male counterparts?
BRIAN and Lyrazel- great observations.
WHILEY- I soooo agree with you.
By CD
January 24, 2005 12:46 PM | Link to this
It’s amazing that the media is letting President Bush’s party decide what the “issue of the weekâ€? is. The issue is devised to divide and distract people from thinking about important issues – i.e., should we really bankrupt the country by blowing up people in Iraq [“liberating them”] or not. Should we spread freedom (a/k/a war) or not.
By norman
January 24, 2005 12:46 PM | Link to this
If we had a draft the streets would be full of protesting marchers, the Republicans would be out of office, and the war would be on the way towards being declared won, by which I mean lost. Republics need citizen armies not mercenaries.
By Brian Curtis
January 24, 2005 01:00 PM | Link to this
quote: “…fighting in a war that they don’t believe in. That is not the case at this time. It’s like me signing up for basketball, then getting mad at the coach because he puts me in to play basketball…. When you sign up for the armed forces there is not a disclaimer stating you can choose when you want to fight.”
Not exactly. It’s more like joining the police department and then being asked to collect protection money. When you sign up, you do NOT sign away your conscience, or your obligation to resist illegal orders and illegal operations.
If the commander-in-chief orders you to massacre civilians, you refuse. That’s what the code of military justice is all about.
By Kim V
January 24, 2005 01:00 PM | Link to this
Uh, RC, those serving on the front lines are in fact Bush voters. Polls conducted right before the election showed the troops favored Bush 4-to-1 over Kerry. Link here to see— http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-03-bush-troops_x.htm
Don’t you think that pretty much tears apart your worldview where the evil, powerful white men are sending all the victimized, choiceless poor to die in a criminal war? Don’t you think those actually experiencing the war in Iraq would have a more educated opinion about whether the war was worthwhile?
By Curious
January 24, 2005 01:22 PM | Link to this
From www.sss.gov/FSwomen.htm: “At President Clinton’s request, the Department of Defense reviewed this issue in 1994. DoD noted that America’s prior drafts were used to supply adequate numbers of Army ground combat troops. Because women are excluded by policy from front line combat positions, excluding them from the draft process remains justifiable in DoD’s view. Although no conclusions were reached, DoD recognized that policies regarding women need to be reviewed periodically because the role of women in the military continues to expand.”
If women are no longer excluded from front line combat missions, then there may be no justification for excluding them from the draft process. How does everybody feel about that?
By Boscoe
January 24, 2005 01:29 PM | Link to this
Brian Curtis have you ever been in the military before? Anybody who has been can tell you the paper you sign commits you to heed the orders of your superiors. If your superior tells you to take a certain objective then you do it. Unless of course, you are accusing the members of our military of not only giving, but also partaking in illegal orders as if that’s all members of the military set themselves to do. It’s funny how those that are angry over the war in Iraq would rather have Mr. Kerry as president — A MAN WHO LIED AND SAID HE KILLED MORE PEOPLE THAN WERE EVEN THERE SO HE COULD GET A VIETNAM MEDAL! A WAR WHICH WAS AS ZEALUOSLY PROTESTED AS MUCH AS THIS WAR With regards for the question of the day. No, women should not be allowed to go to combat. There is to much emotion between the sexes to distract from the objectives at hand.
By Angie
January 24, 2005 01:59 PM | Link to this
Absolutely women should be allowed to fight on the “front lines”. I use that term very loosely however. All the lines of war these days are on the front. I see no reason to let our young men ( and older ) be the only ones who risk all for the love of country. If women can spend ours birthing the warriors, they can spend some time defending them as well.
By stedwards
January 24, 2005 02:16 PM | Link to this
I love peoples comments that say the Bush supporters should be on the front lines. Obviously you love your freedoms but are unwilling to make any type of sacrifice. And yes, I voted for Bush and also served in the Marines. What have you done for your country?
By Hanson
January 24, 2005 02:25 PM | Link to this
Let’s put Dustie on the front line.
By Dustie
January 24, 2005 02:36 PM | Link to this
Disgust! To have Americans display their disloyalty so blatantly is disgusting. Don’t call it anything else. Infamous implications such as “commander-in-chief orders you to massacre civilians”, “criminal war”,”mercenaries”and more. Rubbish.
You want us to believe that you love freedom of speech, democracy, our military and our country. Yet you refute those very things in every way that you can. You attack the government which protects and sustains you. You give incentives to terrorists. Don’t call it political. You are foolish, disloyal people. Canada is still up there and Cuba below. Don’t stay here and suffer in all your misery and complaints.
By Darrell
January 24, 2005 02:36 PM | Link to this
I don’t usually partake in these blogs but I feel compelled to make some of you aware that in an assymetrical war, the “Front lines” unlike in the traditional sense, are very fluid. There may be a major engagement today at a certain street intersection and tomorrow, absolutely nothing, then the next day another engagement at the same location. To think that our female soldiers are not already on the front lines when those lines appear and dissappear like the proverbial wraith, is ludicrous at best. Wake up people, all our troops are at risk all day everyday until they return home.
By Van
January 24, 2005 03:33 PM | Link to this
Not no, but h*ll no.
Between the Air Force and the Navy, there is plenty a woman can do to fight terrorism. Commanding a war ship, to flyiing fighters and bombers. But ground combat should never be allowed.
While some women are more than qualified and would fight if given the chance, to allow some, but not all would be wrong. When we talk about ground combat we must talk in generalities. We can not fill a platoon or company with a percentage that can not handle the stress and demands of the job.
The Army has experimented with mixed sex training, with poor results. Remember that plucky woman guard at Abu Ghraib. Pfc. Lynndie England is a fine example of women in combat positions.
By Janet
January 24, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this
I preface my comments with, I am a military brat, both my parents served in the Armed Forces, as did their fathers before them. After High School I joined the Marine Corps, Reagan was president. I am also a female, and mother to two sons old enough to serve (or be drafted…. if it were in effect.) While serving, I did not believe that women needed to be on the front lines, because of the arguement “men will try to protect them.” The men I knew in the Marines would protect me. But looking back, they would of also protected the men that served with them.
Times have changed. There are NO LINES. Women in the Armed Forces, should be trained (and are) to defend themselves and their country. They, like myself and my family, joined of their accord…. they were not drafted. These women are there doing their jobs and running the risk of being in a combat situation at any time, regardless of our opinions on whether they should be or not. By serving in the military they (the women and men) allow you the Right to express your opinion.
And yes, I did vote for Bush… but more as a vote against Kerry, a man that did more to distroy and demoralize our military on returning from his decorated tour of duty. So, to the question ‘Should women serve in combat situations?’ They already are.
By Bill G.
January 24, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this
Let’s all chip in and buy Dustie a one-way ticket to Cuba.
By Michael D
January 24, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this
If women are in a combat role they should be sent into combat. If women are in a kitchen role they should get me a beer.
By thomas wall
January 24, 2005 04:01 PM | Link to this
Women should only be allowed support roles out of the combat zone. Women may not like this view but if it got down to hand to hand combat, the woman would lose.
By michelle bruce
January 24, 2005 04:01 PM | Link to this
Yes an Woman can serve an fight ,train right besides an Man or anyone else for that goes, if she can handle it an do the job as an Man can. I hate sexest,racist, anyones good old boys system, we as people are all human no matter what. And when we fine any racist,sexist we all need too pluck them out like an weed in an garden. But there is in all cultures sexist an racist,I hope one day we can put all of the sexest an racist in the world one one Island by themselves away from everyone else,but I know this will not never happen.
By Erikka
January 24, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this
This isn’t about who you voted for (let it go - we lost, ok?), it isn’t about whether or not women are able to handle ground combat (because they do every day), and it isn’t about women trying desperately to find something else to complain about (although for some, it is). This is about true, honest equality. If you want to fight and die for your family and your country, no one - including Congress - should tell you that you cannot. What an honorable way to serve your community and show your patriotism! What a way to be a positive role model for younger generations! It’s not for everybody, but for those who feel the calling, they should be unrestricted to go.
By the way - women should be required to sign up for the draft. If we truly wish to be equal, it must be in all things. So what if you’re afraid to be drafted? Bush promised me an all-volunteer army, and I intend on holding him to it.
By Randy
January 24, 2005 04:18 PM | Link to this
If women want to enlist and fight, let them. As long as they know what they are getting into.
By Lynn
January 24, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this
I’m really tired of the Bush bashers…if you haven’t noticed the Bush supporters are on the frontlines. As for the original question “Should women be on the frontlines?” I say yes…they should have the same rules as men. If they join (and the last I heard it is still a voluntary military) they should be able to do the same jobs as the men. I finish with venting another pet peave…Reservists…I know there are a lot of people in the military reserves who are there because they want to serve and proud to do so but for the minority who sign up for the extra paycheck and education benefits yet whine and throw hissy fits if they are called upon to actually do their job I say shut and put up and then get out.
By Clay Hulsey
January 24, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this
Send in the women. Tell them there’s a sale and they’ll charge with reckless abandon.
By Dustie
January 24, 2005 05:14 PM | Link to this
You go first, Billy Boy. I’m in the kitchen getting Michael a beer.
By Marvin
January 25, 2005 07:42 AM | Link to this
I think we should send Dustie to Iraq.
By norman
January 25, 2005 08:47 AM | Link to this
Clay: your comment is really offensive. I am sure that are women who do nothing but shop. However, there are many men who do nothing but watch monkeys on tv playing ball. Between men and women it is difficult to decide which group has more jerks. That’s probably equality.
By Lyrazel
January 25, 2005 09:20 AM | Link to this
Of all the ludicrous ideas…the Bush twins in the military. Well why not Paris Hilton? Why not Sonny Perdue’s kids? My question is: Why arent the Bush kids doing more for non-combat support like USO or maybe visiting at Veterans hospital to chat with wounded who recently came home. Where is Lady Bush? When was the last time she and her daughters actually visited a military base—to serve coffee—or gone to see the troops off? Or visit a widower who lost his wife to a roadside bomb ferrying supplies in an unarmored vehicle. I for one would not want to serve with someone who is more of a hindrence. I want someone I could trust to not bail out and vanish. Of the twins, one is going to be a teacher in an inner-city washington school. One wonders how much money will go to the Secret Service for her protection while she acts this humanitarian skit out for great PR. I would bet Sonny Perdues dinner that she wont stay. Couldnt she better serve her country by working at a school that serves a military base rugrats? Wouldnt that be best PR daddy the Prez could get?
This Iraq war is a NOT WITH MY CHILDREN war. Bush declared it. Americans tied all the ribbons they could to trees and flew flags on their cars—but few pampered kids are joining up to go Army, Navy, Marines and there is a crisis for troops to join Natl. Guard. Maybe a national registration of all 18 year olds for manditory service—in both civic OR military functions—would end the flight of the wealthy or well-connected young men and women from serving their country at least ONCE in their cushy pretty lives.
By Whiley
January 25, 2005 09:36 AM | Link to this
Lets see here, men want to require women to sign up for the draft too. Aren’t you the same ones that tell us we have no business fighting in wars? Why should we be forced to fight in a war when the ones that DO volunteer are sexually assaulted & harassed for being there? Ladies, you can expect it when you are away at military school or boot camp. And you can count on a big cover up when it does happen, & your attackers will not be prosecuted. YOU will be made the fool.
OK, so now we are expected to along with already working full time, taking all the work load of the housework & childcare, are expected to fight in wars because the men of this world can’t control their stupid power struggles? I say NO. We have enough on our plates. The men of this world are costing us too much money & lives. Get your acts together we are sick of it.
By Tim
January 25, 2005 09:50 AM | Link to this
I am in NO WAY a Bush supporter! but I certainly do not think someone needs to look down upon his daughters because of what they do or don’t do… they are not the president! keep their father under a magnifying glass!
also just a side note… life time secret service protection for the president and his family ended with Clinton… the Bushes will not be receiving life time protection
By eric
January 25, 2005 09:53 AM | Link to this
Yes I think women should go to ground combat. If they are in Infantry, or Armored, they should be kept as equals. In paintball, there are alot of women teams that do better then male counterparts because, women are lower to the ground, skinnier, less of a target and are quite accurate in terms of hitting people. If you look at W.W. 2. The Russians, had a woman fighter Ace that had 65 kills, and they had women tanker crews and infantry. I think the biggest thing, is to give women the choice if they want to go so be it. There are a lot of promotions they miss out on because they did not see action. If you want to be treated as equal, Have equal risk.
By Dustie
January 25, 2005 09:55 AM | Link to this
Marvin, thanks for the compliment. The bravest and strongest men and women are serving in Iraq. They make us proud to be American. I’m glad that you think I would fit into that elite corps.
By tom
January 25, 2005 10:03 AM | Link to this
Once again people, if it got down to hand to hand combat the woman would lose. Didn’t you see Saving Private Ryan?
By eric
January 25, 2005 10:14 AM | Link to this
How often in todays warfare is do you see hand to hand combat? Now if your behind the lines like a Naval Seal or Green Beret that’s one thing. 99% is probaly going to be the shooting kind. And women compared to men have no problem doing the crotch shots to the male counterparts on the other side. You see in Saving Private Ryan, it’s world war 2 a professinonal German army vs a American one. How many professional armies have we fought lately? Iraqs was a joke, Afghans was a miltia. Also our hand to hand combat techniques would be superior over theirs. If your a U.S. trained SOLDIER, you should be trained in all aspects of fighting, including hand to hand. If your not, there was a problem with the training.
By Terry
January 25, 2005 10:37 AM | Link to this
There used to be a time when men had respect for women. But that was when men were men - and women were women.
Now that we don’t know the difference, well…
You could take his 5 sons to go off and fight in the Civil War, but anyone who’d even dare suggest that his daughter be subjected to the possibility of having her arms and legs blown off in battle - would probably have been shot on site!
We didn’t have to worry about women being mowed down by machine gun fire at Normandy either. No self-respecting Men would allow that to happen.
Many men have thought that they wanted to participate in combat - only to find it was a living hell and they couldn’t wait to get out of it. And NOW we want our women to go?
The only conclusion that historians will ever be able to reach about this society - is that we went absolutely INSANE!
By Doug M
January 25, 2005 10:47 AM | Link to this
Maybe Dustie should go to Afghanistan and hunt down Osama bin Laden. How about it, Dustie? You could take your relatives with you and make it a real family affair. That could be what you do for the war on terrorism. Don’t just talk the talk - walk the walk.
By Whiley
January 25, 2005 10:52 AM | Link to this
AHH ya gotta miss the good ole days, when women were property & you could beat & verbally abuse them & they had absolutely no way to escape. Damn those feminists !
I suppose to have real equality women will have to start randomly kidnapping, murdering, & dumping the bodies of men out in the woods or off bridges at the same rate.
By RW
January 25, 2005 11:08 AM | Link to this
I’m just curious… How many of you have actually served in the military? Let alone, have you had the experience of going into combat?
It’s very easy for those who do not understand the military to throw their “in the name of equality” or “they’re too weak” opinions around. But give me a break…
Here are a few things to chew on.
It wasn’t until 1994 that women were allowed in combat-support roles. This includes units such as the Navy’s SEABEES, who support Marines in contingency situations. The military, and it’s male-dominated mentality have been slow to change, but it’s changing. I know this from experience, not hear-say. So, while women are not yet assigned to infantry or combat arms, they are standing right behind these “combat” groups. They get training in combat tactics, weapons, etc.
Ask the supply convoy who was ambushed and taken as POW’s - that included both women and men.
From my experience IN the military, I’ve realized that, people, regardless of gender are different. Some are capable of handling the stress of combat, others are not. When a person enters the military, they have some control over the job they take…be it in a support role, or whatever.
The situation also directed by the people WE ALL elect to office - Congress has deemed that people are not ready to see significant American Female Casualties. If you do not like how it is, then call your Congressman/woman.
War is a miserable place that nobody really wants to go. Try being grateful for those who serve so you can freeely sit here on a message board and post your opinions.
R/
Proudly Serving
By Ebony
January 25, 2005 11:11 AM | Link to this
I am currently a woman in the Armed Forces and the situation of women going to combat is a sticky one…guess I’m on the fence. I agree with the notion that women should be required to perform tests to determine whether or not we can go into combat with our male counterparts and if there are women who want to be directly involved in ground combat, then by all means let the ones who do…a lot of men don’t even want to. Everyone in the military is not battle-hardened/made for combat and self-preservation is not a weakness but an instinct. It would be nice if we had enough people in the military so that women as well as men could choose whether or not they wanted to go on the “front lines,” but it would be a perfect world if we could, huh? I also agree that women are already in positions of fighting on the front lines.
I personally hate to see any of my fellow service members put in the position to die in combat (Bush supporter or not…by the way, being the president isn’t easy) but it is the job we signed up for, whether we realized it when we took the oath or not. Plenty of people signed up for the wrong reasons (right out of high school with prospects of education/jobs to ease the burden on our families) or didn’t quite equate combat into the mix…I honestly didn’t when I joined five years ago and there wasn’t a war. I chose a job that I thought would keep me off the front lines but as it has turned out, that isn’t the case. I still do what I’m told to the best of my ability with honor, respect for my fellow service members (especially those in worse situations), and a sense of purpose. All the same, man or woman, combat intimidates most people but we do what we must when ordered; we, as military members, still have our individuality but realize we signed a contract and have a sense of obligation to fulfill it for whatever our motivations are. Please don’t forget that military members, men and women, are people just like civilians not robots, and we have families and personal lives…we don’t eat, breath and sleep the military.
I do think men and women can be equal on many plateaus but all people are not the same…not all men and not all women. I personally don’t think women should have to be involved in ground combat for several reasons but if push comes to shove, so be it. However the issue of women in ground combat turns out, just keep all service members in your thoughts and prayers so we can also enjoy the same freedoms we protect one day.
By Dustie
January 25, 2005 11:14 AM | Link to this
Doug M,
Did I ruffle your feathers? So sorry! Which protest group do you prefer?
By Van
January 25, 2005 11:32 AM | Link to this
Ebony I agree with you on many points. One of the failings of todays Army, Navy and Air Force is that not all folks are trained for combat.
As we saw with the supply convoy being attacked, not all of the armed troops knew how to fight back. I am not talking about complex defense tactics, I am talking about basic fireteam maneuvers and uses. Also, they should be required to pass the same tests as the males.
While in the Marine Corps, I was not in a combat role, but did receive 6 weeks of basic combat training. The women in the Marines receive the same training as the male recruits, bases on what function they will perform. Mine was as a fire control technician with the Air Wing of the USMC, therefore, not a combat role.
Of course, that was 37 years ago, things may have changed.
By Texas
January 25, 2005 11:36 AM | Link to this
COWS, CONSTITUTION AND TEN COMMANDMENTS
COWS Is it just me, or does anyone else find it amazing that our government can track a cow born in Canada almost three years ago, right to the stall where she sleeps in the state of Washington. And they tracked her calves to their stalls. But they are unable to locate 11 million illegal aliens wandering around our country. Maybe we should give them all a cow. CONSTITUTION They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq. Why don’t we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, it’s worked for over 200 years and we’re not using it anymore. TEN COMMANDMENTS The real reason that we can’t have the Ten Commandments in a Courthouse! You cannot post “Thou Shalt Not Steal,” “Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery” and “Thou Shall Not Lie” in a building full of lawyers, judges and politicians! It creates a hostile work environment!
By Terry A.
January 25, 2005 11:40 AM | Link to this
Or there’s always Iran. How ‘bout it, Dustie?
By Howard Floyd
January 25, 2005 11:53 AM | Link to this
There are many reasons women should not be in combat units, but the primary one is the is the conflict introduced in a combat team when you add a woman to the mix. The problem is present in most military units, but becomes more acute in combat units. When you have nineteen and twenty year olds, or fifty years olds for that matter, adding sexuality issues into the team, severely complicates the cohesiveness and morale of the team - which can be fatal in combat. This is no place for social engineering. Some people will argue that this should not be a problem for well disciplined soldiers. Obviously they don’t know much about human nature.
By CBJones
January 25, 2005 11:53 AM | Link to this
Ms. Glass, you are such a fool!!!! Instead of sending young women into a war that should not be taking place, you favor killing everyone just to be equal. Why don’t you volunteer to go and fight for your country in this illegal and unforgiven war. When or if you have kids make sure you volunteer them to fight as soon as they are old enough, women should not be on the battle field, have you ever been raped or degraded, obvious not or you would not make sure a stupid decision. We should not be in war at all, but we should not subject our women to such rage, creative by men.
By Michael D
January 25, 2005 11:55 AM | Link to this
Dustie…I definitely like your style…wink…oh and thanks for the cold one!!
By Dustie
January 25, 2005 11:59 AM | Link to this
Naw, my burka is out of style, Terry. Are those Arafat headpieces comfortable or do you prefer turbans?
By Texas
January 25, 2005 11:59 AM | Link to this
OK, OK, OK, Sorry I got off subject. I was in the USAF (1973-1977). It’s not whether Women are capable, it’s the consequences if captured, wounded etc etc. Most men in uniform would be at higher risk if his comrade was female and in a compromising situation. War is bad enough, why subject our men in combat with additional worries? Why give the enemy barter power? Any Marine will tell you, no brother is left behind! Semper Fidelis!
By Stormer
January 25, 2005 12:04 PM | Link to this
Duh Pfc. Lynndie England was not in a COMBAT ROLE …I am for women in combat positions…heck I am even for women in the draft but most of all I am for ALL folks to server a mandatory 2 years in the military after high school or 2 years in a type of service job such as the Peace Corp or the AmeriCorps. We need to instill pride in this country and civic responsibility and this way it is equal you either serve your contry in the military or you serve your country in public service. Either way no exceptions for rich or poor !! That way when CONGRESS decides to invade a country they they first think if they want their kids there. RIght now only TWO CONGRESSMEN have children in the military.
By tom
January 25, 2005 12:08 PM | Link to this
Not only should women NOT be sent into combat, I don’t think they should be beat cops in high crime areas. Detectives yes, beat cops no. Women should be held in higher regard.
By Steve
January 25, 2005 01:02 PM | Link to this
Dustie, you should definitely go to Iraq. You’d feel right at home.
By Terry
January 25, 2005 01:10 PM | Link to this
“Naw, my burka is out of style, Terry. Are those Arafat headpieces comfortable or do you prefer turbans?”
Dustie,
I may have missed that part of our history - but I don’t recall women in our country wearing burkas. And I might have failed to mention it in my earlier post - but I was referring to former times in our country. Sorry that I confused you with something that never happened - here.
By William
January 25, 2005 01:27 PM | Link to this
Being a member of the Armed Forces, I have seen first hand how even average men physically out-perform fit women. Not to say there isn’t the odd exception where a woman finds herself much more able than most men, but far and wide it isn’t the case. Also, having been in combat, I also know that there is a more protective reaction towards women placed in dangerous situations. My own personal thoughts, however, are that if a woman feels she can perform under the strains of a combat arms job, then by all means, give her the chance. If she doesn’t wash out of training and actually prove herself amongst her comrades, then I am sure she would be a wholly valuable asset to the military.
By Juice
January 25, 2005 01:36 PM | Link to this
Substantially same arguments were made with female fire uh… persons as well. Like combat personnels, they have to lug around heavy gears, be in extremely stressful environments, perform feats of great endurance and strength, work together as a team and be subject to “protectiveness” issues some people mentioned in a similarly heavily male-dominated field. I believe women must complete substantially similar qualification tests as men.
So having said that, I have no issues if some women volunteer to go into combat roles and be qualified for such roles after training and testing. It’s better to do this than to decide with stereotypes of gender roles.
In closing, we needs to remember the immortal words of Hudson and Vasquez in Aliens.
Hudson: Hey Vasquez, have you ever been mistaken for a man? Vasquez: No. Have you?
By Steve
January 25, 2005 01:38 PM | Link to this
This is not a right vs. wrong issue. It is a wisdom issue. SHOULD women have the right to be in the infantry? Probably so. Are there women who would do well in the infantry? Of course there are. Would it be wise to open the infantry to women? Probably not. History shows that we will lessen the requirements to make sure we have a representative sample of women once they are admitted to the infantry. The results would be a weaker infantry.
By Bruce
January 25, 2005 01:43 PM | Link to this
I would like to say to all who have ever served and are serving now in OUR Armed Forces, THANK YOU. It is your unselfish attitude that has helped make this country a great one. It makes me proud to be an American.
Ebony said it best, “All the same, man or woman, combat intimidates most people but we do what we must when ordered; we, as military members, still have our individuality but realize we signed a contract and have a sense of obligation to fulfill it for whatever our motivations are.” Ebony, my thoughts and prayers are with you and your fellow service members
These MEN and WOMEN put their lives on the line every minute of every day. We owe them more than just sitting around complaining about whose children are not in the fight, or who started it, or who should go fight. Take a long look in the mirror and ask yourself, What am I doing to show my appreication.
You should be ashamed. (Or move to France)
By RM
January 25, 2005 01:44 PM | Link to this
What sort of “father Knows Best” nonsense says that women are not good enough to do whatever is necessary in their CHOSEN careers? I have known several women in the military, and not one of them joined the service with the expectation that she would never be called to combat. Two of the women that I know only joined the service after the combat restrictions were lifted.
I wonder how Shaunti has the gall to call herself a “can do” type of female. She is the kind of woman who would have been perfectly happy to be seen and not heard, the simpering, weak trophy wife good for nothing more than being her husband’s brood mare.
I feel sorry that Shaunti believes herself to be inferior to men in even one small way, but she is overstepping herself to assume that all of us feel the same. I feel nothing but contempt and pity for women like you. I hope that one day you wake up and realize that your great grandfather’s rules are outdated and no longer apply to the women of today who are educated and allowed to own property and not be property. The right to vote was wasted on a simpering mouthpiece like you.
By Randy
January 25, 2005 01:47 PM | Link to this
Wow a question where Norman hasn’t shown his hatred for all things good in the World and the thing that has made this country great, namely(Christianity). He usually will find a way to tell everyone how much he hates us Christians. This will be a agenda weak week for you Norman.
By Dustie
January 25, 2005 02:21 PM | Link to this
Terry’ No confusion here. Didn’t you suggest sending me to Iran? I wouldn’t know a WMD from a sitting duck much less a burka. But let’s not argue. That sounds like !!!combat!!!
Never fear, Terry, there are honorable women of character in and out of the armed forces. They will do well wherever they are.
Steve, Maybe your home life is like Iraq’s war but mine isn’t. Neither is that of our troops. But they fight bravely and I give them my full support. Do you?
By Melanie
January 25, 2005 02:56 PM | Link to this
Dustie, I agree with Steve. You were made for Iraq.
By Dustie
January 25, 2005 03:10 PM | Link to this
Melanie, Steve, etc.,
Since we are passing our compliments, let me give you one. You were made for France.
By Michael D
January 25, 2005 03:13 PM | Link to this
Get dressed in ya Burka and bring me a beer. Flip SpiceLAND is my hero.
By Dustie
January 25, 2005 03:27 PM | Link to this
Hmmmm…Missed your AA meeting again, huh Michael?
By Burton
January 25, 2005 03:34 PM | Link to this
Dustie, I’ll bet you’d do well in North Korea.
By Dustie
January 25, 2005 03:46 PM | Link to this
Thank you, Burton. I’m sure I would. But Homeland Defense took my two tin cans and a string so I can’t communicate. What’s a spy to do?
By Heather
January 25, 2005 03:49 PM | Link to this
Dustie, I just have a hunch you’d enjoy Saudi Arabia.
By Dustie
January 25, 2005 04:21 PM | Link to this
Yes, Heather, I “dig” those oil wells but they won’t let me. They won’t even let me drive my Rolls Royce disguised as a KIA.
But how’s your geography class? First grade is always a tough one. Gets you ready for !!!combat!!!
(Exit here. Rumsfeld is calling.)
By Mandi
January 26, 2005 07:32 AM | Link to this
How about going to help out in Sudan, Dustie? You could really show your humanitarian side there.
By Joe
January 26, 2005 07:33 AM | Link to this
If women want to serve in combat they should be allowed after passing all the physical and mental requirements for the position. The military should create combat regiments that are all women, send them into combat, and see if they are as effective as their male counterparts. If they get wiped out, it was a bad idea, if they are successful, you go girls!
By James H.
January 26, 2005 08:06 AM | Link to this
I have recently learned there is an organization called “Armor 4 Troops Foundation, Inc.”. It provides new and replacement body armor, etc. to the military fighting the war. This organization even stands out on the roadside taking donations. One person was very happy that he had collected $7.00 in 10 minutes. Yet the United States spending on the war is reportedly at $300 billion. Something is definitely wrong with this picture. Why is our military not getting the body armor they need? In case anyone is interested, the website is armor4troops.org.
By Lyrazel
January 26, 2005 08:43 AM | Link to this
What is it about patriotism that brings out the worst in people. This go-go attitude one must serve or shut up confounds me. After working as a volunteer for 17 years I have meet vets on the street on the low end of their lives, who are greatful to be listened to. None of them have that gun-ho attitude, some still wear fatigues to show solidarity. I have also worked with vets in outpatient clinics where they learn to live without limbs, sight, hearing and with trauma. There are women soldiers in these groups and have been since 1964 when I first volunteered. One of these women was raped by commrades and suffered through a dishonorable discharge for bringing her case to superior officers. The myth all soldiers act honorable has not exactly been the military way concerning its treatment of career military women, yet we now have change. Awareness and tough laws that say even a general or an admiral can loose rank if they poo-poo issues of violence against another soldier. So lets end the bs about who is more patriotic. Some people like me could never have gotten into the military because of medical and it should not be used as a divisive tactic to blame some for not wanting to support military engagements not based on facts. I have lost: a brother in Viet Nam, I have lost 2 in-laws (female & male) in the Gulf. I have a nephew who graduated West Point and serves with the 101st Airborne, an inlaw is a merchant marine, an inlaw with two bronze and a silver star from Viet Nam, my father served in Korea, my brother did the DMZ also. My grandfather and grandmother both served WWI, my Uncle served WW2. Am I patriotic enough to make coments? Pass the french fries.
By Terry
January 26, 2005 08:54 AM | Link to this
James,
How much Body Armor is need by our troops? How many troops and vehicles need the armor? Where are the troops and vehicles that don’t have the armor? How well does the armor work - both for the troops and vehicles? How many lives have been saved because of the armor and how many lost because of the lack of it? How do we know that the supposed lack of armor is due to the inadequate funding for it? Could there be other related issues that are effecting that situation - or does it have to be because we haven’t raised enough money from a website yet?
Or is it just simply, that someone makes a claim, the Media takes the story and runs with it without any of the particulars - and that then qualifies it as a: Crisis…?
By Suzanne
January 26, 2005 09:02 AM | Link to this
Terry, why not address questions to your elected officials?
By Terry
January 26, 2005 09:12 AM | Link to this
Suzanne,
I am not going to address them because I don’t consider it a crisis. And I am quite sure whatever problem there may be with it - it is already being addressed. But if I were to be out here complaining about something of the sort, I would already have the answers to those particulars - before I depicted it as a: Crisis.
Follow me?
By Gil Gibson
January 26, 2005 09:16 AM | Link to this
Most of the people who debate whether women should serve in comment have as much validity as a man commenting on the experience of childbirth. The ticket for admission to this debate should be a Combat Action Ribbon, Combat Infantry Badge or Air Medal. Opinions from people who do not hold one of these are just that….. opinions with basis.
By Gil Gibson
January 26, 2005 09:18 AM | Link to this
Most of the people who debate whether women should serve in comment have as much validity as a man commenting on the experience of childbirth. The ticket for admission to this debate should be a Combat Action Ribbon, Combat Infantry Badge or Air Medal. Opinions from people who do not hold one of these are just that….. opinions with no basis
By Terry
January 26, 2005 09:24 AM | Link to this
Gil,
I have 3 of each one of those - plus the Medal of Honor.
Are we all going to need to fax our Service Records in to the AJC and be screened before we can make further posts?
I just hope the next topic is not about the President of the United States. Only Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and both Presidents Bush - would be allowed on the board!
By Caroline
January 26, 2005 09:30 AM | Link to this
Gosh, Terry, I must have missed something. Did someone depict a crisis? Seems to me only info was given.
By Terry
January 26, 2005 09:46 AM | Link to this
Caroline,
Yes - you did miss something.
By Dustie
January 26, 2005 09:51 AM | Link to this
Mandi,
So glad you brought up the serious subject of Sudan. You, too, can contribute through Lutheran World Relief and Doctors Without Borders for the Darfur region of Sudan. I showed “my humanitarian side” by doing just that. It is sometimes called “Putting your money where your mouth is”. You should try it.
And talk about women in combat—-the women of Darfur are it, a fight to live every day. I hope you appreciate the great privilege of living in America.
By Terry A.
January 26, 2005 09:57 AM | Link to this
Dustie, get that burka back on and keep it on.
By vincent
January 26, 2005 10:00 AM | Link to this
That was a great comment: “Anyone who voted for Bush should be in ground combat.” In regards to strength, this is the reason why gays should serve in the military; everyone knows lesbians are physically strong. I just hope that no woman suffers a “costume malfunction” though. Can you imagine the trauma of an exposed nipple during ground combat? But, SpongeBob Squarepants has no nipple, and maybe the best thing for his image right now would be to send him into ground combat.
By Carl
January 26, 2005 10:14 AM | Link to this
James H, thank you for the information. I have gone to the Armor 4 Troops website and contributed. I hope others will do the same. The following appears on their website:
It is an unfortunate fact that some of our American troops are sometimes faced with the situation of not being fully equipped to engage in neither the current war in Iraq nor other peace-keeping and humanitarian missions throughout the world without a significant risk of increased and sometimes preventable serious injuries or even death as a result of a lack of “state of the art” protective body armor & eyewear and fully equipped armored vehicles being available to them at the tactical level.
The position of the Armor 4 Troops Foundation, Inc. is not to cast blame or dispersions upon our government, our leaders in Congress or our military for this situation. That is best left to the professional pundits or those who seem to live their lives in order to espouse to the world “what’s wrong with something and point out who they think is to blame for it�, rather than becoming involved in positive, constructive efforts to support our government, our leaders in Congress and our military to help evaluate and remedy the situation if necessary for our troops.
By William
January 26, 2005 10:22 AM | Link to this
Dustie, head on over to Somalia and help out there.
By Gil Gibson
January 26, 2005 10:42 AM | Link to this
Terry,
You have been in combat with the Army AND the Navy/Marine Corps AND the Air Force in three different conflicts and on top of that you earned the Medal of Honor? Wow. My hat is off to you. BTW, how old are you?
By Terry
January 26, 2005 10:43 AM | Link to this
“The position of the Armor 4 Troops Foundation, Inc. is not to cast blame or dispersions upon our government, our leaders in Congress or our military for this situation”
Carl - I’ll tell you what their “position” is. Their “position” is to take as much money as they can - from unsuspecting contributors.
Or maybe this “roadside” crew is out there gathering money to put it in an envelope and mail it to the Department of Defense?
Attn: Department of Defense
This money is to be ear-marked for HUM-V armor. So please put this money in a separate pile and don’t forget to tell Secretary Rumsfeld that we have sent it to you - we want to get those troops outfitted as quickly as possible!
Thank you,
Charlatans
By JohnR
January 26, 2005 11:13 AM | Link to this
What a ridiculous topic. This is like, two weeks in a row now. As Barry Goldwater said when the question of gays openly serving was asked “as long as they can shoot straight, it doesn’t matter if they are straight” I think this goes for women too.
Just because someone doesn’t support the military policy of this country in certain areas does not mean that they are not patriotic. why bother arguing on these blogs if you don’t give a damn? Many people view the Iraq war as an imperial war, they believe the Presidents words about spreading freedom, are cloaked, and what he really means is American Hegemony i.e The Pax Americana. Many Americans believe that a Republic should not be empire building. Which means they care about the direction this country is heading in, that the views of its neighbors does mean something. If you say you cannot dissent on policy, then you are essentially saying that the very things you espouse to believe in are to you nothing more than advertising slogans. Because if you cannot support a person’s right to dissent, then you don’t really believe in what the ideals of this country are.
By Carl
January 26, 2005 11:21 AM | Link to this
Terry, you’re pathetic.
Residents work to keep troops safer in Iraq
By Ashley Fuller Cherokee Tribune Staff Writer
Two local men are raising money to send additional protective equipment to soldiers serving overseas.
Robert Ledee of Towne Lake and Jay Biggs of southwest Cherokee County are heading up Armor 4 Troops, a new nonprofit organization based in Woodstock.
The group’s primary mission is to provide new and replacement protective body armor and eyewear to American troops currently engaged in war zones.
“When you see a picture of the soldiers over in Iraq, you don’t usually see them wearing things like goggles and kneepads,” said Ledee, 58, a lieutenant colonel with the U.S. Marine Corps who is scheduled to retire in April. “These guys are making the ultimate sacrifice, so we want them to have what they need.”
Biggs, 55, a home inspector who served with the Marines from 1970 to 1975, said they formed the organization in December after seeing that some soldiers were not fully equipped. He said they both are familiar with how the supply chain in the military works and knew they could help.
“Sometimes, because of the bureaucracy or administrative bog downs, the soldiers have to go without,” Biggs said. “We are not looking to replace the government. We just want to do something positive for these guys. These young men and women are putting their lives on the line so we can live in freedom and peace at home.”
So far, Armor 4 Troops has provided Paulson triple lens, tactical combat fragmentation goggles to the B-Company First Battalion 108th Armor Regiment of the 48th Mechanized Infantry Brigade, stationed at the Army National Guard Armory in Canton. The battalion received the supplies earlier this month prior to shipping out for training in Ft. Stewart where they will stay until deployment to Iraq this summer.
“We were hearing reports about some of the guys coming back blind because shrapnel got in their eye,” Ledee said. “With these goggles, at least we can protect their eyes.”
Armor 4 Troops solicits donations from the general public, corporate donors and other foundations to accomplish its mission. Volunteers recently have been collecting donations near exit ramps off Interstate 575.
The group also provides under-armor armor, retrofit armor kits for existing vehicles and other critical pieces of equipment. Ledee said the organization also could provide armor for dogs searching for weapons. Other services provided by Armor 4 Troops are spousal transportation, food and lodging assistance and after-care assistance for critically wounded troops.
By Dustie
January 26, 2005 11:57 AM | Link to this
JohnR…
Most Americans believe in the right to express dissent. But, if you believe the president’s words are cloaked, maybe you haven’t read what is called “dissent”. Everything from the president’s family to troops overseas is”trashed”.Personal attacks, lies, implications of untrue conditions,rumors, political vendettas; anything goes when you call it dissent. Honest dissent, yes. But there is so little of it. We ARE at war. If you don’t want us to win freedom for Iraqis, just say so. Don’t give us this mish-mash about the ideals of our country while literally stabbing them in the back.
By Terry
January 26, 2005 12:14 PM | Link to this
“Biggs, 55, a home inspector who served with the Marines from 1970 to 1975, said they formed the organization in December after seeing that some soldiers were not fully equipped.”
And this group has done all those wonderful things that was cited in the article - since December?
But what I really find interesting, is that apparently you didn’t even know of this organization until James H. posted it (whom I suspect is you) and within two hours you had already looked up the website, donated to it, and come up with some article about it - for which I can’t find on the website!
I guess you’re just in the habit of that hunh Carl - running out to websites that you’ve never heard and immediately donating money to them because they say they are supporting the troops - and are now one of their biggest supporters? All in a couple of hours!
You’re a fraud, pal. Plain and simple.
By norman
January 26, 2005 12:23 PM | Link to this
Dissent? Having lived through the lies told daily by our government and by “patriots” concerning the Vietnam War and how having the same thing done about the Iraq war, I judge dissent the only honorable position to have. Those who defend the indefensible are contemptible. To dissent is American. Too bad we don’t have enough of it.
Those attacking dissenters are fascists whether they realize it or not.
By Bob Casey
January 26, 2005 12:50 PM | Link to this
No, women should NOT be allowed in combat on the ground. Why? Because the point of combat is to WIN, not be diverse or politically correct. Sorry folks, but women overall, in general are NOT as strong or tough as men.
If they were, the NFL would be co-ed - women pro TENNIS players would play men (as would GOLF). If women can’t compete and win against men in GOLF, how can they on the battlefield?
If you don’t know, there is a lot more to soldierin’ than pulling a trigger. Even with Humvees and Bradley’s, there is the occasional run with loaded packs (see “Black Hawk Down”). Our soldiers have it tough enough. Our units don’t need built-in handicaps. Every soldier should be able to depend on his mates for maximum support no matter what the circumstances. That is one reason training is so tough.
Can women fight when necessary? Absolutely! World history is full of examples of women fighting, when forced to by circumstances. But it just isn’t smart to try and do it by choice - unless you want to lose or “merely” increase your own casualties…
By Debbie
January 26, 2005 01:14 PM | Link to this
Terry, I have been known to be a bit skeptical from time to time myself, so this is what I did.
I went to the Armor 4 Troops website, found the name of Robert Ledee, located the headquarters, which is in Woodstock, GA, which I already knew is in Cherokee County. Then, follow closely now, I went to my old friend, search engine Google, typed in “Georgia newspapers”, the first thing that came up was Georgia newspapers, which I then clicked on, that led me to the Cherokee Tribune, which I clicked on, then I located Search Archives, which is on the left-hand side, I then typed in the name Robert Ledee, then hit GO, and, Voila! up came the article.
Now, granted, I didn’t know if there would be anything about this organization in that newspaper, but I thought, Hey, what the heck, I’ll give it a try.
BTW, the newspaper web address is cherokeetribune.com. That would make it easier for you. Have a nice day!
By Dustie
January 26, 2005 01:26 PM | Link to this
Well, Norman, you finally found something you like—-dissenters—“the only honorable position to have”.Loyalty is not in your noble vocabulary. And if I think your words ,”lies told daily by our government”, are not dissent but pure personal paranoia, then I am a contemptible fascist.
Certain dissenters may be betraying their country, whether they realize it or not. It is still betrayal.
By Alice
January 26, 2005 01:26 PM | Link to this
If a person possesses the physical abilities needed I don’t think gender should be a factor. If we’re going to discuss fairness, why, in order to qualify for Federal college grants, are male students required to register for the draft but female students are not? Either make the requirement for all or remove it.
By Carl
January 26, 2005 01:34 PM | Link to this
I believe you might possibly be a wee bit paranoid, Terry.
By norman
January 26, 2005 03:22 PM | Link to this
Dustie: you should have worked for Joseph Goebbels.
By Dustie
January 26, 2005 04:06 PM | Link to this
Norman, I’m more the type that works with George W. Bush in a democratic country. Why don’t you try it?
By norman
January 26, 2005 04:11 PM | Link to this
Dustie: if you think Bush has anything democratic about him you are deluded, but I already knew that. Sieg Heil!
By Terry
January 26, 2005 04:12 PM | Link to this
Hey Debbie,
Thanks for the great information about Google and the step-by-step instructions on how to search for something.
But that wasn’t my point.
And BTW - Did you donate a bunch of money? I mean, if someone has a website and claims to be supporting the troops AND you can find their name in a newspaper article - that’s all you need, right?
And then some wonder how people could be so foolish when we learn of phony organizations ripping people off!
“How could it be, they had a website and everything!!!”
By Dustie
January 26, 2005 04:43 PM | Link to this
Good grief, Norman, you will soon run out of insulting adjectives. Now I’m a deluded, contemptible fascist. Wow! May I show some DISSENT to that egregious title? This is a democratic country, Norman. Republic! Freedom! Get it? Try hard, now.
By Debbie
January 27, 2005 07:52 AM | Link to this
Terry, no thanks necessary, I was glad to help you out. Some folks are just not computer savvy.
I’ve noticed something from reading your posts. You really don’t seem to have a point, you just rant on and on about stuff, making no sense whatsoever.
Have a nice day!
By GB
January 27, 2005 08:07 AM | Link to this
The only consideration should be the effectiveness of the armed forces. Does the presence of women in combat increase or decrease our nation’s ability to defend itself?
For the USSR, in 1944, the answer was clearly yes. Millions and millions of soldiers were killed, disabled, or captured. The manpower shortage was severe. Everyone was needed.
That is not the case in the US in 2005. We have small, professional army. We need only a few ground combat troops. That force should consist of the very fittest individuals available. Are there any women at all who can match strong and superbly conditioned young men?
Remember the “hero” Jessica Lynch? She wasn’t classified as a combat soldier but she certainly fell into that role. Remember the pictures? That frail little girl had no place in Iraq.
By Terry
January 27, 2005 08:23 AM | Link to this
Just thought I would throw this out here about the Armor For Troops Foundation, INC. (armor4troops.org*).
You might find it interesting that a Government Contract (GS-07F-5502R) was awarded to: Botach Tactical, 3423 W. 43rd Place, Los Angeles, CA 90008 on Nov. 30, 2004.
Botach Tactical is the company that makes the Paulson Lens that Mr. Ledee at Armor For Troops seems to be pushing so hard for - and plenty of pictures of them on his website.
The contract was awarded at the end of November - Mr. Ledee’s organization starts-up in December…
Strange how a man could be so interested in protective eyewear for our troops, that he starts-up an organization soliciting donations - at about the same time a $300,000.00 dollar contract was awarded to the people that make the VERY SAME ONE that he is so fond of!
And BTW Debbie - I’ve probably got more “computer savvy” in my left little finger than you could even dream of having!
By Charlotte
January 27, 2005 08:39 AM | Link to this
Terry,
Shame on you for begrudging our troops goggles, armor, etc. If these people want to do this, it’s nothing to you. You don’t have to help. You can just continue to spout off all day long, but some of us want to aid our troops. You’re not worth the time it takes to send messages to.
By Terry
January 27, 2005 08:45 AM | Link to this
Charlotte,
Our troops have goggles and armor. But if you really want to help them - write your Congressman and tell them to overturn the USFSPA.
Debbie can help you with the Google search on how to figure out what that is.
By Scott J
January 27, 2005 08:48 AM | Link to this
You people are nuts. Terry’s right, that bunch is just ripping you off and you don’t have sense enough to know it. Terry is a very intelligent person, he or she knows what’s what. Terry, keep it up, maybe they’ll learn something afterwhile.
By Mary T.
January 27, 2005 08:55 AM | Link to this
This is to Terry and Scott, you should be ashamed of yourselves, neither one of you has enough sense to get in out of the rain. You both sound like little crybabies. Stifle it.
By Vincent
January 27, 2005 11:07 AM | Link to this
I think God made Spongebob Squarepants gay on purpose. Just like he made women the weaker sex, except for the lesbians, they are stronger and tougher than normal women. Hey, if lesbians weren’t mean to reproduce, then is it ok for them to show an exposed nipple? Does anyone know if Ms. Rice’s pants were really on fire last week?
By Akeya
January 27, 2005 02:00 PM | Link to this
How in the WORLD did we get to Spongebob Squarepants?
By Ebony
January 27, 2005 03:01 PM | Link to this
Thank you to the folks commenting on this issue who are now serving or have served in the military (people close to the military as well) and for your genuine concern and insight on this topic. These folks are aware of the foundation of the matter at hand: Prehistoric as it may sound, the primary reason (which has several supporting factors) women are not intentionally put into ground combat situations is to protect the majority as much as possible, in the best interest of the military’s current objective, which is men.
Whether capabale or not, it takes the best of the best to survive and succeed in the harsh conditions of war. Plenty of women could hack it, but the majority of women would probably need specialized equipment to make this more realistic. One day with better technology and training or a different type of war, women may be integrated into ground combat situations. In the meantime, we closely support the war however we are needed…weapons loaders, police, medics, pilots and even cooks and administrative personnel (alongside men in the same “non hand-to-hand combat” career fields).
NOTE: This same reasoning is why the majority of ground combat is accomplished by the Army and the Marines and not other branches…each branch is capable of each others’ missions but specializes in specific areas. There is probably a fairly equal percentage of women in the all services with exception to Marines, and we put our hats off to those women. There are plenty of women who would love the honor, but understand the reasoning, even if they don’t like it.
By Dustie
January 27, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this
Well, thanks to Ebony for a very sound and reasonable comment. My support goes to her and all those serving in the armed forces. You make us proud.
By Debbie
January 28, 2005 07:48 AM | Link to this
Terry, if you need any more help with getting to websites, just let me know. Have a nice day!
By Christa
January 28, 2005 10:01 AM | Link to this
Debbie,
Go back to your ivory tower and preen. All that I know about Terry is the fact that he is a smart and talented commentator. He often makes these “forums” both interesting and informative. Too bad you can’t do the same. Have a nice day!
By Debbie
January 28, 2005 10:09 AM | Link to this
Christa,
Thanks for your two cents worth, but no one asked for it. Let Terry speak for Terry. In other words, mind your own business. Have a nice day!
By Christa
January 28, 2005 10:28 AM | Link to this
Debbie,
No one asked for your two cents worth either but you gave it. This is a forum. Remember? Go back to your ivory tower and sulk. And MYOB! Have a nice day!
By Debbie
January 28, 2005 11:09 AM | Link to this
Christa, Christa, Christa,
You should have read an earlier post, when Terry said he couldn’t locate a particular website. I merely aided him in finding it. You just contradicted yourself. You said this is a forum, then you told me to MYOB. I get from your posts that you are a very angry person, you might want to work on that. Have a nice day! Speaking of which, I see you are using my phrase. As the saying goes, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Thank you!
By Zack
January 28, 2005 11:32 AM | Link to this
Women should not be in ground combat. There’s a sizable myth nowadays that a reference to differences between men and women is an implication of superiority. This is not true. Men and women are different. Period. Did I say one was better than the other? No, not at all. There are just differences between the two. Ms. Glass made an interesting point when she said that men and women complement each other. I almost always disagree with her, but on this I do not. She’s right. Men and women DO complement each other, but in the field of battle, women would do more harm than good to the cause. Furthermore, because men and women do complement each other, we have one of the many reasons why gay marriage is wrong. A male-male or female-female relationship would not work. A male-female relationship IS effective. We need to return to a traditional style of thinking and quit trying to force the interchanging of gender roles down the throats of others. By the way, I took a Psychology class two years ago that was taught by a feminist. She preached against, among other things, stereotyping. She later said she wanted us to do an extra credit project where we all broke a gender role publicly. She actually had the nerve to say to the male students that an example would be to apologize to all your friends if you made a bodily noise. Well, she’s stereotyping men as being crude, the staunch hypocrite. (I made her angry because I told her I was afraid it wouldn’t be long before her male students performed this assignment by going out in public without their make-up.) Of course, saying one thing and doing another is not a new concept for liberals. Heck, we’re told that you’re a bigot if you oppose homosexuality in any way. No, not at all. Bigotry is what is given to Christians for daring to be different. Look at the situation in Cobb County. Refusing to teach evolution as anything but fact and refusing to teach Creationism even as a theory is nothing but the rawest form of bigotry (and propaganda) going. Why not take all the abortionists, child molesters, and people from the porn industry and put them into ground combat in Iraq? Let’s give them no weapons to use and get our country cleaned up.
By Zack
January 28, 2005 11:43 AM | Link to this
Dustie—Welcome to the blog. I see Norman kindly introduced himself to you and your daring to differ with him. By the way, Akeya, Norman referred to watching monkeys play ball on TV. You’re always falsely accusing people of being against Jews. That was an open statement against Blacks. Where’s your opposition, hypocrite?
By norman
January 28, 2005 11:47 AM | Link to this
You cannot teach creationism since there is nothing scientific to teach. What would you teach? You might be able to take time to discuss whether there is any sign of a direction or plan in evolution. That should certainly be part of any evolution class. But creationism is not a scientific subject. You could discuss different religious theories of creation in a comparative religion course.
By Whiley
January 28, 2005 11:56 AM | Link to this
FABULOUS JOB ZACK ! You spilled your hatred toward everyone in just one post. I really don’t appreciate you telling me that because I want the govt. out of my womb I’m on the same level as a child molester & pornographer. That’s just wrong.
The subject is about women in combat. (Not your religious war against everyone & everything)
Women are already in combat.
And guess what? Evolutions IS A FACT. There are LOADS of proof of evolution. Nothing but writings to prove your religious fables.
By Zack
January 28, 2005 12:01 PM | Link to this
Norman—On the contrary, the scientific evidence is there for Creationism (of course it is! God CREATED science!). This evidence has been repressed for years because of the liberal stranglehold on the school system. It’s time to break the hold. (Unfortunately, I’m wrong; it’s PAST time.)
It unfortunately doesn’t stop here. In elementary schools, the gay-rights movement has had its hand in trying to brainwash kids. One of its many, many subtle attempts to perform this brainwashing has been to have pictures drawn to imply that two-parent households aren’t necessary. Such subtle, passive, indirect messages aren’t very manly. Of course, neither is homosexuality.
In a classroom discussion this week, we were analyzing an ad by the evil company that is Disney. (Unfortunately, we have naive parents out there who think anything animated is safe.) A classmate spoke of an ad of a man and woman as an endorsement of a heterosexual relationship—as though that’s a bad thing.
If we allow the homosexual community to desecrate the institution of marriage, it won’t stop there. Eventually, incest would have to be legalized. Beastiality would have to be legalized, etc.. I guess the aforementioned classmate would eventually have to have a picture of a man with a woman, a man, a sibling, a child, and a farm animal. My goodness, this world is so wrong!
By Zack
January 28, 2005 12:09 PM | Link to this
whiley—You have no leg to stand on, just blanket statements. You and those like you are the ones spewing hatred, and you try to convince the world that it’s just the opposite. I encourage you to seek out the TRUTH about our universe’s origin and other matters. If you believe everything you’re told on the world news or in secular classrooms, you’re being just what those people are wanting you to be: a pawn. As for abortion, you have no right to kill your baby. It’s cold-blooded murder, and you know it, so don’t waste your time trying to make excuses.
By norman
January 28, 2005 12:29 PM | Link to this
People like Zack eventually end up as total fascists. These are people who cannot adjust to reality and modernity, they need an ideology tied to an imaginary past. Religion serves this purpose for a time but eventually something stronger is needed. Like an heroine adict needs more and more dope. Zack is headed that way. His inability to express anything but hate (even as he pretends to be a loving Christian) is evidence of his pathway.
By Whiley
January 28, 2005 12:32 PM | Link to this
HEHE ZACK. a 6 week old fetus isn’t a baby. You are a man so you can hush now. Go back in your cave. You can chant by your fire & sacrifice animals to your gods all you want to, just don’t live in my neighborhood. I have a feeling you are divorced or never married without children. Probably why you hate women so much, none of us will have sex with you.
Now, I say anyone that wants to fight in war & is qualified should. I’m thankful anyone has to guts to do it in the first place.
By james
January 28, 2005 12:34 PM | Link to this
Women shouldn’t be allowed to serve in combat roles. The can’t even pee standing up.
By Zack
January 28, 2005 12:38 PM | Link to this
Norman—My beliefs are supported by reason and wisdom. Yours are not. Period. By the way, like Dustie said, you’re running out of adjectives. You’re calling me a Fascist, haha. This, coming from what seems to be a Nazi.
Whiley—Again, you are completely wrong. As for your little insults, I’d expect such from the liberal community. So, you think I’m a cave man for defending abortion? Hmmm, maybe we can get a cave man to be president.
A fetus IS a child. Life begins at conception, my friend. You have a thesis statement but no supporting paragraphs—and never will.
By Whiley
January 28, 2005 12:57 PM | Link to this
HAHA HEHE ZACK ! They are not insults, I suspect I am right on about your status. If you want to believe in the boogie man, Santa Clause, or that a fetus is a full term baby you go right ahead. Just remember men don’t own women anymore. I know that is difficult to accept, but it is true.
Why else would a man be on a WOMAN TO WOMAN site spewing hatred & guilt about how we should be acting & doing with our lives?
IF you really wanted to make a difference, why don’t you go on a board that catches pedophiles trying to arrange sex with children? Or a site that helps men with domestic violence or porn addiction? Or how about a site that educates everyone on birth control so we don’t NEED abortion?
James of COURSE WE CAN pee standing up ! We just can’t write our names in the snow.
By Jodi
January 28, 2005 01:07 PM | Link to this
Why is it that when it comes to things that women are allowed and not allowed to do that men get to be the ones to decide? Let’s unite, women, and not allow this to continue! Are we not capable of making decisions ourselves? Zack, good luck in this world if you think Disney is evil…your poor kids! That Mickey Mouse is a scary guy…
By james
January 28, 2005 01:21 PM | Link to this
u can’t pee standing up without dropping your pants. with your pants at your ankles in that ackward squatting position i don’t think you’ll be able to fire to straight or run too fast. of course, u do have the alternative….pee yourself.
By Whiley
January 28, 2005 01:36 PM | Link to this
I agree Jodi, we’ve let men screw up this world for far too long. Don’t worry about Zacks kids, remember he has to find someone to have sex with to actually have any. Jodi for President!
James, you got me on that one lol You definitely win on the peeing thing.
By Randy
January 28, 2005 01:39 PM | Link to this
I agree with Zack on evolution, all the books I read and the scientists I talk to, none believe in macro-evolution. Actually, Whiley there is less scientific proof of evolution now than when Darwin came up with the “Thoery”. Darwin recanted before he died, maybe you and Norman will see the truth before its to late.
By Bruce
January 28, 2005 01:59 PM | Link to this
Since this discussion has turn towards evolution I have a question. If evolution is fact, what made it stop? I mean why do we not see half human, half whatever? Shouldn’t we still see evidence (living, breathing, evidence) that something is still evoling from this creature to that? Shoudln’t we see half human, half monkey?
By Randy
January 28, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this
Good point Bruce, why didn’t any other animal evolve into a creature that can reason? There is a million of these!
By Whiley
January 28, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this
Evolution of all creatures took place over billions of years. But here is a perfect example of human evolution.
If you visit museums in Europe, you will notice right away how tiny the average person was even just a few hundred years ago. The armor of a normal sized soldier was almost childlike in size. We would all be considered giants.
By Randy
January 28, 2005 02:11 PM | Link to this
Bruce, what macro-evolution really is, is a reason for those who have not accepted God into their heart, not to do that. The heart rules the mind, if their heart is not right with God, no matter how convincing our arguments are(and they are extremely convincing) they are never going to agree with us. Their heart isn’t in it.
By Randy
January 28, 2005 02:18 PM | Link to this
Whiley you are absolutely right, however you are talking about micro-evolution. That creature is still human. The argument is one species changing into another, like a bird changing into a reptile(this is what evolutionists want us to believe), that is macro-evolution and has never been discovered in science(actually has never happened, scientists have had 145 years to find it). That’s what this evolution discussion is all about, no one disputes micro-evolution, God gives us micro-evolution so we can adapt to our environment. Humans have evolved, but they are still human. Think it through!
By Johnson
January 28, 2005 02:31 PM | Link to this
Randy,
You don’t know what you are talking about. I’ve read enough of your ignorance. Why don’t you go do some .edu sites instead of reading all those ridiculous creationist sites. Every single one of your idiotic assertions can be refuted. Go to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html.
First of all, Macro evolution has been proven. Secondly, one of the prevailing theories among evolutionary biologists is that macro evolution is a result of many micro evolutions. There are countless living transitional models to demonstrate this. Why don’t you learn a little about the scientific discipline. Evolution is not characterized by a lizard sprouting wings, or a whale growing feet. It’s characterized by reproductive isolation. Individuals of a species that have genetic changes within the species (microevolution) eventually no longer breed and are designated a different species (macro). Look up Green Warbler species rings, look up speciation in stickelbacks. Look up the Cickled fishes. There are thousands of research papers out there to read.
As far as what current scientist are studying, I seriously doubt if you know any. Go to any university’s biology or zoology site and you will see what the evolutionary biologists are studying…genetic variation between species…that’s macro evolution. Go to unc.edu, duke.edu, San Diego State University…you know places where they do research.
And to all of you creationists, get off of Darwin. His methods and research are 140 years old. He is given credit only for his pioneering into evolutionary research, but most theories today have gone far beyond his research method.
You can cite your religious babble all you want but as far as disproving evolution, put up or shut up.
By Whiley
January 28, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this
How can any of us claim to know how it all started & force our views on the rest of the world? How many wars were/are fought because of religion?
I cannot ignore the proof of life that was discovered & how it evolved. There is proof of how it happened & that cannot be ignored. I understand that it upsets the foundations of every religious group. That’s the problem here. That would mean that the man made creation of what God is, is completely wrong. That’s probably too much for mankind to handle. Not for me though. I’m open to anything. I don’t claim to know everything & nobody else should either.
Now, about this “Holy” war in Iraq.
By Randy
January 28, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this
Johnson, Macro-evolution has never been proven, if you don’t want to believe in God, that is your option, but don’t try to justify it with lies.
By Johnson
January 28, 2005 02:48 PM | Link to this
Randy,
You’re a fool. I said put up or shut up. I mentioned a few examples of macro evolution. Here’s another one http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mchox.htm. Scientist agree that they are valid. Disprove it! With science. You can’t. You know why? Because you don’t understand it enough to argue. C’mon put yourself out there. Go to those studies and tell this forum why they are wrong. Let’s see who is full of lies.
By Randy
January 28, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this
Johnson, I guess that is the same scientific mindset that said the world was flat, just a few hundred years ago, or the ones who said we should “bleed” people to get diseases out(what killed Washington). There are thousands of scientists who do not believe in macro-evolution, I’m sure you can find some who still do.
By Johnson
January 28, 2005 02:54 PM | Link to this
You’ve confused yourself now. Stick to real estate.
By Randy
January 28, 2005 03:10 PM | Link to this
Johnson, The three greatest minds in the last 1,000 years(Einstein, Newton, and Da Vinci) all believed in a creator. I’m going to stick with them, not someone who calls himself(Johnson) no offence. Also, anyone who argues in favor of macro-evolution is fighting a lose/lose battle. You lose either way. Have a good weekend.
By Bruce
January 28, 2005 03:15 PM | Link to this
Now I am really confused. First some here are sayig we shouldn’t believe the Bible because it is/was written by a man. Yet when you are trying to add credit to your side you quote examples of research papers, books or statements written by men or women.
Johnson, what do you mean by “reproductive isolation”? Would that be the equilivent of Homosexuality?
By Johnson
January 28, 2005 03:22 PM | Link to this
Yes Bruce…it is the equivalent of homosexuality.
By pat
January 28, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this
I think only ugly women should be in combat.
By norman
January 28, 2005 03:28 PM | Link to this
This time it was not me that brought the discussion around to God again. It happens inevitably because the God question is the important one. Religion is central to the question of whether man will progress or not. We all really seem to agree on this. So please, no more complaints that we are off the subject. We are right on the subject. Is there a God? Does Christianity teach the truth? Etc. The answer my friend is blowin’ in the wind.
By Whiley
January 28, 2005 03:28 PM | Link to this
I think only attractive men under 45 should be allowed on TV.
By Randy
January 28, 2005 03:29 PM | Link to this
What they really want us to believe is, the universe created itself in the beginning(wow what happened to Physics). Also, that studies of DNA is incorrect, it can vary within a species. Next I guess it will be, the planets revolve around the earth, right. Years ago (40’s and 50’s), there were a few people who had not accepted Jesus as their lord and savior, at least they had the sense not to tell anyone. Common sense tells us a creator does exist and that he would make himself known to his creations(namely us humans).
By lozen
January 28, 2005 03:32 PM | Link to this
One can be violent in speech (like on this forum), or in fighting and killing in Iraq (to be continued soon in Iran and who knows where else whether women are part of the ground forces or not). This is a great quote from a great man regarding violence.
“The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate, In fact violence merely increases hate. So it goes. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.” -Martin Luther King, Jr.
By lozen
January 28, 2005 03:37 PM | Link to this
And there you go again Randy…. Do you not know that in the past it was the teaching of the church that the earth was flat and that the planets and the sun revolved around the earth? They burned at the stake the people who disputed that.
By Whiley
January 28, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this
Religion is central to the question of whether man will progress or not??
Then we are all doomed because religious freaks want to kill or irritate non-believers to death.
By Akeya
January 28, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this
Depends Zack.. the monkeys playing golf, baseball, basketball, volleyball?
Perhaps that’s how you perceived the comment because that’s waht you think.
Are you still in love with me? You just cannot leave me alone, can you. I’m sorry, but I’m engaged. You’ve no chance.
By Randy
January 28, 2005 03:40 PM | Link to this
Amen Iozen, like I said before, the heart controls the mind. If someone heart is not right(having accepted Jesus as lord and savior), it doesn’t matter what we say to them, their heart is dark and doesn’t want to know or hear the truth. They may not even know that their heart is that way and they may be nice people, or even in alot of ways “good” people. They don’t know that they don’t know!
By Randy
January 28, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this
Whiley, It isn’t us religious people bothering you(no one makes you go to this forum), it’s your inner desire to know God and the truth, that is what is bothering you. God Bless.
By Tim
January 28, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this
Zack… you wonder why people say you spew hate… you compare homosexuality to bestiality, child molestation, and incest… hmmm let me think I wonder why people would say you are hateful!
Randy… George Washington died from disease he got from having sex with his slaves too much
By whiley
January 28, 2005 04:05 PM | Link to this
Randy nothing is bothering me. But I do despise annoying people that try to control others in the “name of God”. NOBODY knows the truth. I’m sick of the holy wars.
I can just imagine beings from other planets just sitting back laughing at us. “look, those humans are at it again, kneeling & chanting to the atmosphere.”
By Dustie
January 28, 2005 04:09 PM | Link to this
Goodbye, Debbie
Terry did not ask for your help. And do you really think anybody would imitate you? Why would they? So, have a nice day and MYOB (two very common expressions).
By Bruce
January 28, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this
Every knee shall bow and every tounge confess!
By Christa
January 28, 2005 04:18 PM | Link to this
Thanks, Dustie.
Maybe we can get back to the subject of this forum “Women in combat?”
By norman
January 28, 2005 04:36 PM | Link to this
What about Joan of Arc?
By Whiley
January 28, 2005 04:45 PM | Link to this
What about Demi Moore !
By Dustie
January 28, 2005 04:52 PM | Link to this
Watch it, Norman. You are about to get religious. Joan was a nice girl but the French don’t seem to have followed in her footsteps. Combat? Je ne sais pas.
By Debbie
January 31, 2005 07:39 AM | Link to this
Dustie,
You and Christa need to realize that Terry is a big boy who is capable of defending himself. Really, he is.
Do the both of you have a crush on him? Got some threeway thing going here?
GOOMC
Have a nice day!