- Joined
- Dec 14, 2005
- Messages
- 1,704
- Reaction score
- 10
- Location
- New Hampshire
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Let me be clear. I love women for their many contributions to society including but not limited to their care giving and mothering roles. However, I am dead set against women in combat units, and to a lesser degree, unhappy and marginally concerned about women obtaining any military occupation especially during wartime. I’m all for women assuming a non-military Rosie the Riveter type role during wartime.
Wasn’t it a woman that wrote a bestseller titled, “Men are from Battleship Galactica, Women are from Love ship Greenpeace?” I may have gotten the title wrong but the theme of the book acknowledged that women are better emotionally equipped to handle the tribulations of a soap opera saga from couch side, rather than squeezing the trigger of an M-16 rifle at an approaching enemy soldier while standing and trembling inside of a foxhole.
Aside from a few lady wrestlers and a handful of masculine lesbian butches--the biological makeup of most women makes demanding combat roles an impossibility.
I remember humping a 75 pound rucksack up the treacherous mountainside of the A-Shau Valley in Vietnam during hot climate and high humidity. I also carried a 22-24 pound M-60 machine gun, heavy ammo belts, and weighty water canteens. There were a couple of effeminate cherries that caved in to the strenuous demand. Those guys were quickly shuffled back to REMF status at our base camp. The point being with everything unfair and unequal in war and body structure--I see no way for a woman (any woman) to have been able to proceed in that combat setting--let alone survive it.
Bill Clinton helped bring political correctness and e-masculinity into the United States military. With the advent of the total acceptance of gays in the military during his administration and the emasculation thereof--women could now call on their feminist sisters to help complete the feminization of our military, you know, with their equal rights agenda and all.
With young men’s hormones in a constant uproar, and the availability of women troops to satisfy their needs--the role of a militarily focused warrior had now transferred to the role of a wanton sex-craved young man.
With rapes, women troops getting pregnant, and incidents like the Tail hook Affair--sensitivity and further emasculation classes for young men were in order. Training to kill for combat now took a back seat for a new protocol featuring the sensitive, caring, and peaceful demeanor of all new male recruits.
The president of the United States is our CIC (Commander-in-Chief) of our combat units. Knowing a woman’s emotional handicap and inability to function properly in a combat setting--doesn’t it alarm you to the possibility of having Hillary as our CIC overseeing all operations of our combat personnel? I have no problem with having Condi Rice assume the position of CIC, for she acts like she owns a complete set with her brilliant performance as Secretary of State. Just because Hillary looks like a man does not mean that she possesses the emotional nerve needed to be a military leader--let alone our CIC.
TimmyKid
Last edited:
