Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 1/20/2002 3:53:45 PM EDT
I just caught this on 60 Minutes. This is BS that she is forced to wear a Muslim religious symbol. [url]http://www.cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,324757-412,00.shtml[/url] (CBS) The nation’s highest-ranking female fighter pilot is suing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld over a Muslim garment that has become standard U.S. government issue and mandatory off-base dress for military women in Saudi Arabia Air Force Lt. Col. Martha McSally tells Correspondent Lesley Stahl in an interview to be broadcast Sunday on 60 Minutes that the policy flies in the face of the U.S. Constitution and her religious beliefs. McSally, one of the few women on track to make general in the armed forces, says the dress code requires female military personnel to dress while off the base in “host nation attire” - a traditional Muslim head-to-toe garment called an abaya. This is unconstitutional, she says, because military men are not required to dress like local men. “This is where we separate our men from our women and we demean and humiliate just them,” she tells Stahl. The Pentagon says the policy is to protect American troops from harassment and possible terrorist attacks and to be sensitive to the customs of Saudi Arabia, where some 5,000 military men and women are stationed. It’s foolish, says McSally, because a male must accompany women at all times off base, a male with crew-cut hair and western clothes that make the Americans glaringly obvious anyway. Also demeaning, she says, is the fact that only men can drive vehicles, according to policy. “And then I have to sit in the back and at all times I must be escorted by a male…that, when questioned, is supposed to claim me as his wife,” McSally tells Stahl. “I can fly a single-seat aircraft in enemy territory, but I can’t drive a vehicle… They turned me into a fighter pilot. This is who I am. When I see something messed up, I’m going to challenge it.” McSally’s suit asks for no money, just the change of the policy that she also says is an affront to her Christian beliefs. “I’m not against Muslims, but I’m not a Muslim and to…be forced to wear a Muslim garment…from a religion I do not follow…to me is defying Christ,” she tells Stahl.
Link Posted: 1/20/2002 3:57:19 PM EDT
She aint sueing, she is looking for "POLICY" change.
Link Posted: 1/20/2002 3:58:18 PM EDT
I hope she enjoyed her career while it lasted. Soon she'll be stationed in Alaska, however, she'll be free to wear whatever she likes while off base which should make her happy.
Link Posted: 1/20/2002 4:05:31 PM EDT
She is an ass. She is the little girl who could not have it all. She is 35 and a LTC. In addition, they give her time off to compete in triathlons. Seeing this crap after seeing Black Hawk Down makes me want to puke.
Link Posted: 1/20/2002 4:08:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/20/2002 4:10:10 PM EDT by SKSBoy]
I don't rant often on here(my first time)but i got something to say about this. She's such a whiney fu**ing B**ch, she took the oath, now she dosen't want to follow it. When i was in Saudi we weren't even allowed to leave the base. I didn't B**ch about it, it comes with the job. I lived 3 months in a 1 mile square. If the B**tch has a problem with it, get out, or don't leave base. If she wants equality, give her equality with us Enlisted folks, she how she likes that sh*t. *rant mode off*
Link Posted: 1/20/2002 4:09:18 PM EDT
Of course, she's suing. She's got an agenda! To think of all that money wasted in teaching this idiot to fly - I thought combat pilots were supposed to have good judgment - she doesn't! The Navy did the same thing a dozen years ago when they immediately put that female naval aviator back onto the carrier, after she had flunked carrier landings twice. The Navy said her error was common, but when they tried to reconstruct the error, every male aviator did the correct maneuver to avoid the crash, even when the test got rigged! This is all well and good when the US is at peace or engaged in an action such as the War on Terror, but whenever there comes a war in which the very existence of our nation is at stake, gender politics be damned! Eric The(EvenTheIsraeliWomenAreNotInCombat!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 1/20/2002 4:18:00 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/20/2002 4:27:40 PM EDT
You guys can't be serious. I don't see Tommy Franks wearing a Turban when he's off base.
Link Posted: 1/20/2002 4:28:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/20/2002 4:29:31 PM EDT by OLY-M4gery]
As an American I believe she still has a Constitutional protection of freedom of religon. I think it is interesting on a site dedicated to the 2nd Amendment.........that so many are willing to overlook a possible 1st Amendment Rights violation. We should just get out of Saudi Arabia.
Link Posted: 1/20/2002 4:29:06 PM EDT
Well, I agree with her on principle. She's also apparently doing a good job. Short-tailed Colonel at 35? That's below the zone for that grade. If she's in par with male officers and pilots of equal rank, then I say that's great, not just for her, but for the Air Force. As for the dress code issue, she's got a hell of a good point. She's trained to fly combat missions, shoot other fighters out of the sky, and deliver nuclear weapons, but can't wear the clothes she wishes or drive a vehicle because it's not cool with the local camel-driving sandhogs? Bullshit alert! Our policy should be clearly stated as: If you want American bases on your land, you're going to allow American personnel to dress and act like American personnel. They'll respect your customs, but don't expect them to comply with all of them. As to whether she's a bitch or not, who cares? I sure don't. Probably she is, but anyone who's made O-5 at 35 years of age is going to be a very driven individual. Spell that 'bitch' or 'asshole'. But they make damn good officers, usually. CJ
Link Posted: 1/20/2002 4:29:35 PM EDT
Yes, Big Bear, I think we all get the gist of her story, but so what? None of the servicemen or servicewomen are permitted to wear crosses when they are in civilian clothes and off base. It's the price we pay for defending these godless bastids! Whoops, I didn't mean to say that! What I meant to say is when the Brass makes a policy decision, there is a chain of command, etc., and when she got back an adverse answer from that chain of command she decided to sue! The Rutherford Institute (a very conservative group) is bankrolling her suit and I have to say that I disagree with them on this case. Besides which, it is not a MUSLIM dress, it is a dress that conforms to what MUSLIN women are expected to wear! It has nothing to do with whether she is a Muslim or not! She obviously can't handle her job, since her job is to support the foreign policy of the US through the orders of her superiors. Just because those orders may not be the way she would like them, is no reason to complain in the Courthouse! She's an idiot, and a well-trained one at that! Eric The(SitDownAndShutUp!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 1/20/2002 4:34:32 PM EDT
Boyz, boyz, she may have constitutional rights here in the good old US of A, but our laws end at the edge of our territorial waters. Don't believe me? Then tell Col. McSally to have a few beers off base in Riyadh and then commit adultery with some tall, dark and handsome stranger (not Bin Laden, one hopes), and see if the US State Department can keep the Saudis from beheading her! May not be right, but it happens to foreigners all the time! Eric The(WhenInRomeDoAsTheRomans)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 1/20/2002 4:37:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Besides which, it is not a MUSLIM dress, it is a dress that conforms to what MUSLIN women are expected to wear!
View Quote
That makes perfect sense to me! [whacko]
Link Posted: 1/20/2002 4:40:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/20/2002 4:46:18 PM EDT by OLY-M4gery]
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Yes, Big Bear, I think we all get the gist of her story, but so what? None of the servicemen or servicewomen are permitted to wear crosses when they are in civilian clothes and off base. It's the price we pay for defending these godless bastids! Whoops, I didn't mean to say that!
View Quote
I agree with the 2nd paragraph, let's get out, they are more trouble than they are worth. Oh yeah, let's not send them any high tech weaponry no matter how much the whine, there a 2nd line country, they should only be allowed 2nd line equipment.
What I meant to say is when the Brass makes a policy decision, there is a chain of command, etc., and when she got back an adverse answer from that chain of command she decided to sue!
View Quote
Policy decision that overides a Constitutional Right........ I think she has a point.
The Rutherford Institute (a very conservative group) is bankrolling her suit and I have to say that I disagree with them on this case. Besides which, it is not a MUSLIM dress, it is a dress that conforms to what MUSLIN women are expected to wear! It has nothing to do with whether she is a Muslim or not!
View Quote
Since the reason she must wear whatever is religious, to appease Muslims, it forces a religious doctrine on her.
She obviously can't handle her job, since her job is to support the foreign policy of the US through the orders of her superiors.
View Quote
You lack foundation to make that claim. And in my experience some of the most capable people are often the toughest to get along with, that's why the military generally treats pilots with "kid gloves" and does things to make sure they are happy.
Just because those orders may not be the way she would like them, is no reason to complain in the Courthouse!
View Quote
I believe she handled her grevience properly. She has complied with the orders. She explained her grevience to her chain of command, and recieved no relief. She continued to follow the orders. She then formalized her complaint to higher authorities. She continues to follow what she sees as questionable orders. What did she do wrong? No refusal to follow orders.
She's an idiot, and a well-trained one at that! Eric The(SitDownAndShutUp!)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
Oly-(we should protect the freedoms of those who protect ours)M4gery[;)]
Link Posted: 1/20/2002 4:42:04 PM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Yes, Big Bear, I think we all get the gist of her story, but so what? None of the servicemen or servicewomen are permitted to wear crosses when they are in civilian clothes and off base.
View Quote
I think that's the point. Why is she required to wear somthing that her male counterparts aren't. In fact they're forbidden to even if they wanted to.
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Besides which, it is not a MUSLIM dress, it is a dress that conforms to what MUSLIN women are expected to wear! It has nothing to do with whether she is a Muslim or not!.
View Quote
I don't see the visiting female dignitaries and embassy staff forced to conform to "what MUSLIN women are expected to wear!"
Link Posted: 1/20/2002 4:42:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Boyz, boyz, she may have constitutional rights here in the good old US of A, but our laws end at the edge of our territorial waters. Don't believe me? Then tell Col. McSally to have a few beers off base in Riyadh and then commit adultery with some tall, dark and handsome stranger (not Bin Laden, one hopes), and see if the US State Department can keep the Saudis from beheading her! May not be right, but it happens to foreigners all the time! Eric The(WhenInRomeDoAsTheRomans)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
I think there's a difference between the U.S. government controlling Saudi policies on one hand, and the U.S. government controlling it's own policies on the other.
Link Posted: 1/20/2002 5:16:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/20/2002 5:19:14 PM EDT by 5subslr5]
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Yes, Big Bear, I think we all get the gist of her story, but so what? None of the servicemen or servicewomen are permitted to wear crosses when they are in civilian clothes and off base. It's the price we pay for defending these godless bastids! Whoops, I didn't mean to say that! What I meant to say is when the Brass makes a policy decision, there is a chain of command, etc., and when she got back an adverse answer from that chain of command she decided to sue! The Rutherford Institute (a very conservative group) is bankrolling her suit and I have to say that I disagree with them on this case. Besides which, it is not a MUSLIM dress, it is a dress that conforms to what MUSLIN women are expected to wear! It has nothing to do with whether she is a Muslim or not! She obviously can't handle her job, since her job is to support the foreign policy of the US through the orders of her superiors. Just because those orders may not be the way she would like them, is no reason to complain in the Courthouse! She's an idiot, and a well-trained one at that! Eric The(SitDownAndShutUp!)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
Eric, you must mean "Jesusless bastids" as I believe Muslims, Jews and Christians of faith worship the same God. The Light Colonel has facts and right on her side. When leaving base she must be attired in traditional Muslim attire, be escorted by a male, not drive a car and if riding in a car sit in the backseat. Additionally the Lt Colonel is not a Muslim but a Christian. I'm certain this is fine with you but even if "Hun" approved this treatment is not equal and apparently isn't even required by our good 'friend' and ally Saudi Arabia. None of the females stationed in Arabia and attached to the embassy have to comply with these idiotic and demeaning rules. I belive State's rule is "Conservative and tasteful attire." Gentle people this is NOT another of those military female-demands-favoritism nor is it another military-female-can't-cut-it stories. This is a story of simple right and wrong. This is a story of attacks on the Lt. Colonel's Christian beliefs. Eric, I choose to believe you posted without the complete facts. Otherwise you have attacked an active-duty military person - Christian. By God she may be female and Military but she's a damned AMERICAN - one of 'ours'. And she's right and correct.
Link Posted: 1/20/2002 5:19:12 PM EDT
McSally has always bitched and got her way! Since her days at the Academy! She's SPECIAL! [:X*] DaMan
Link Posted: 1/20/2002 5:22:52 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/20/2002 5:38:45 PM EDT
Maybe we should retaliate by forcing Saudi women to wear revealing attire, including thong bikinis, when visiting the United States. Also force them to get drunk and commit adultery with an American. [devil]
Link Posted: 1/20/2002 5:39:59 PM EDT
Unless I am mistaken (and it has been known to occur), this Lt Col. has / had been picked for the fast track to some G.O.C. position. Whether this is justifiable, based on merit or politics, I suggest that most of us are not in a position to know so I would give this 35yr old career officer the benefit of the doubt. As such, she is required to attend meeting off base in her capacity as a Lt. Col. While her male colleagues wear their regular uniform to attend these meetings, she apparently is required to wear some alternative attire, i.e. appear at these meetings out of uniform thus undermining her position. I would regard that as an insult to her and the service she represents and would have thought that most members would have fully supported her decision to one way or another highlight and so bring to a head such an inequity rather than side with a bunch of biggoted, stone-age sand muffins! It appears that neither the brass nor the government have the balls to confront this issue – but she has!
Link Posted: 1/20/2002 6:10:14 PM EDT
Originally Posted By stcyr: Unless I am mistaken (and it has been known to occur), this Lt Col. has / had been picked for the fast track to some G.O.C. position. Whether this is justifiable, based on merit or politics!.....
View Quote
Got it right on your last guess! Politics! I appreciate your observations as a foreigner, but if you don't have all the facts....you might refrain from comment! DaMan
Link Posted: 1/20/2002 6:11:49 PM EDT
I've got the solution: Allow her to wear her uniform off-base, and authorize her to carry an M4 carbine with M203 attached at all times. In order to avoid killing too many crazy old Muslim anklewhackers, provide her with special ammo that contains rock salt in a .223 capsule. Her spare mag could contain SS109 ammo, to be used only in case of extreme emergency. When that runs out, the M203 is authorized for use. That'd work! [heavy] CJ
Link Posted: 1/20/2002 6:21:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/20/2002 7:07:14 PM EDT by stcyr]
Originally Posted By DaMan:
Originally Posted By stcyr: Unless I am mistaken (and it has been known to occur), this Lt Col. has / had been picked for the fast track to some G.O.C. position. Whether this is justifiable, based on merit or politics!.....
View Quote
Got it right on your last guess! Politics! I appreciate your observations as a foreigner, but if you don't have all the facts....you might refrain from comment! DaMan
View Quote
Tell me DaMan, who exactly does have "all the facts"? Or is your emphatic conclusion "Politics!" – thus condemning this individual's actions – based on anything more than your own opinion? If a male Lt. Col. were required to walk about or attend meetings with towel on his head, I would suggest that most members would be screaming for blood! One final thing: How come you managed to attend an exclamation mark half way through my post? Is this normal? Can everyone "play" with other members' quotes to enhance their own point of viewpoint? In the interests of fair play, you might have quoted my post in full – rather than giving people a distorted impression! Or, do you regard that as an okay way of dealing with "foreigners" who don't share your opinion and are not privvy to all the facts – as you apparently you believe yourself to be?
Link Posted: 1/20/2002 6:37:51 PM EDT
Originally Posted By stcyr: Unless I am mistaken (and it has been known to occur), this Lt Col. has / had been picked for the fast track to some G.O.C. position. Whether this is justifiable, based on merit or politics, I suggest that most of us are not in a position to know so I would give this 35yr old career officer the benefit of the doubt. As such, she is required to attend meeting off base in her capacity as a Lt. Col. While her male colleagues wear their regular uniform to attend these meetings, she apparently is required to wear some alternative attire, i.e. appear at these meetings out of uniform thus undermining her position. I would regard that as an insult to her and the service she represents and would have thought that most members would have fully supported her decision to one way or another highlight and so bring to a head such an inequity rather than side with a bunch of biggoted, stone-age sand muffins! It appears that neither the brass nor the government have the balls to confront this issue – but she has!
View Quote
stcyr, this is not something required by our terrorist funding, terrorist inspriring, America hating ally the Arabians. No government balls are needed to confront this issue. Once again, this is not something required by the host-country - Saudi Arabia. Our American state department females in Arabia are NOT REQUIRED to wear traditional Muslim attire, not forbiden to move on the streets without a male companion and not required to ride in the backseat of an automobile. All of our American idiots are not named "Klinton" nor are all Dimocrats. What we probably have here is some General who believes his "political correctness" will lead to another star. Hands down the Lt Colonel will win. And she should. She wears our uniform, she flies the missions and she is, in my opinion, deserving of our support. (Her religion is Christian and not Muslim.)
Link Posted: 1/20/2002 6:54:30 PM EDT
5subslr5, You may well be correct. But I would have thought that some 1 or two star general would have been slapped into place before it reached the stage of "60 minutes".
Link Posted: 1/20/2002 7:01:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By stcyr: 5subslr5, You may well be correct. But I would have thought that some 1 or two star general would have been slapped into place before it reached the stage of "60 minutes".
View Quote
Of the facts I'm relatively certain. As to why asses were not booted into place.....?
Link Posted: 1/20/2002 7:09:16 PM EDT
Yes: It is stupid, but it is a good order and discipline issue. It is the F*cking military. It is what it is. This falls under the chickenshit category. What about the issues she ignored. I.e., the ones that suited her. She was too small to fly fighters, but they "gave" her a waiver. She is use to getting what she wants. What about the Rangers and Army aircrews forced into combat without all the needed resources. Now that is something to get upset over.
Link Posted: 1/20/2002 7:20:17 PM EDT
Originally Posted By QCMGR What about the Rangers and Army aircrews forced into combat without all the needed resources. Now that is something to get upset over.
View Quote
I simply defend the Lt Colonel on principle. My principles. I suspect that as a person she is a sniveling, conceited bitch. But on the issue at hand I believe she's not only correct but right. Any American military going into combat without all needed resources is not only something to get upset over but is a national disgrace. That's the type thing I fire emails to congressmen and make phone calls to senators about.
Link Posted: 1/20/2002 7:24:35 PM EDT
QCMGR, I was in the military, not yours, but they all amount to same thing. If she was given some kind of waiver, then produced the required results, I would suggest that the Reg. was in error, not her. i know how the miltary works, but unless somebody had "bucked the system", we'd all all still be wearing redcoat tunics! Isn't that what you folks are supposed to be all about?
Link Posted: 1/20/2002 7:28:26 PM EDT
OK - let me see if I have this sorted... Female pilot is being forced by State Dept. to wear garb "conforming to local custom" (or maybe not state, maybe some C2CO with Stars in his eyes...) while male counterparts are allowed to run about in mufti and uniform without restriction. Female is also forced to be accompanied by male counterpart (who MUST claim her as his wife if asked!) and my not operate vehicle - this despite being charged with multimillion dollar aircraft... Female also not permitted to occupy forward seat in ground vehicle (BS, but stupid nonetheless) - regardless of # of Pax in vehicle. Female crying religious persecution due to being required to conform to Muslim standards despite being Christian... POINT - Females are working for acceptance in combat arm of services. While I sincerely doubt they will ever be fully equal (viz G.I. Jane,) a certain level of acceptance is possible. Factors against TOTAL integration are both physical and psychological, but matter for another topic... Conclusion - Double standard in existence. As NCOIC of a couple of units, I firmly believed that if a "man" (read: anyone in unit) is good enough to fight and die with, then he's good enough to drink with, eat with, party with, and I won't place any restrictions upon him that I won't put on myself (If I can stay sober for the next month while on standby, EVERY ONE of you assholes will too!) Resolution - Eliminate double standard. Support - Saudi Arabia (essentially a puppet state since inception, and created by unoficcial acts of US Oil interests in financing the bin Saud family in the 30's) has no great issue with Western conduct and customs - they are used to Western visitors (the current issues relate to Western Military presence - NOT Western visitation...) Having been in Saudi (and PNG'd as well - more in a moment) I can attest that most restrictions placed upon Americans behaviour stem from the whims and dictates of DoD or the State Department. I mentioned being PNG'd from Saudi - essentially thrown out of the country and told to never return. While the circumstances are basically unimportant, it is interesting to note that I was ejected by AMEMB Saudi Arabia (US State Department!) and NOT GoSA, as might be expected. Not that I was hurt by it, I LIKE bacon with my eggs in the morning, some rum in the evening, and I was getting tired of "wall-to-wall fuck-all" rather quickly. Witness the effects of allowing the PC lunatic fronge to dictate military policy. I find it promising that this pilot does not want money - merely to be treated as the men are. Very heartening... FFZ
Link Posted: 1/20/2002 7:35:08 PM EDT
U.S. Troops should be respected as U.S. soldiers, not respected because of gender.
Link Posted: 1/20/2002 7:36:59 PM EDT
What happened to "When in Rome..."? In any case, I think her basic misconception, or perhaps her failure to come to terms with since she is a woman on the fast-track, is in the eyes of 'dem folks women are NOT equal. She should keep that in mind when living as a guest in a foreign country. I don't like the fact we are there at all, but since we are don't we have to abide by their customs when off-base? Now, if they won't let or guys hold church services on-base, that is entirely a different story. She has her rank, her position, her authority. Everyone knows who she is so I doubt a junior officer or enlisted man is going to tell her to screw off just because she's wearing that thing. OTOH, if she's following the proper chain of command and obeying orders, I can't really fault her for bringing this issue up with the brass. And I don't see how they can fault her either.
Link Posted: 1/20/2002 7:45:33 PM EDT
Originally Posted By mattja: I don't like the fact we are there at all, but since we are don't we have to abide by their customs when off-base?
View Quote
Once again this is not an issue of the host country. Females working for our embassy are simply requested to wear "conservative and tasteful" clothing when on the streets and away from the embassy. NOT a host country issue.
Link Posted: 1/20/2002 7:47:39 PM EDT
Post from OLY-M4gery -
Policy decision that overides a Constitutional Right........ I think she has a point.
View Quote
There is no 'constitution' in Saudi Arabia that gives this woman any rights! If you're thinking 'US Constitution' you're thinking of the wrong country - this is happening in [b]Saudi Arabia[/b]. It is an Islamic monarchy - women have no rights there, neither do any other US citizens (or Saudis for that matter!). Eric The(GetAMap!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 1/20/2002 7:48:32 PM EDT
Fair is fair. The men should have to put a diaper on their head when they leave the base.
Link Posted: 1/20/2002 7:54:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 5subslr5:
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Yes, Big Bear, I think we all get the gist of her story, but so what? None of the servicemen or servicewomen are permitted to wear crosses when they are in civilian clothes and off base. It's the price we pay for defending these godless bastids! Whoops, I didn't mean to say that! What I meant to say is when the Brass makes a policy decision, there is a chain of command, etc., and when she got back an adverse answer from that chain of command she decided to sue! The Rutherford Institute (a very conservative group) is bankrolling her suit and I have to say that I disagree with them on this case. Besides which, it is not a MUSLIM dress, it is a dress that conforms to what MUSLIN women are expected to wear! It has nothing to do with whether she is a Muslim or not! She obviously can't handle her job, since her job is to support the foreign policy of the US through the orders of her superiors. Just because those orders may not be the way she would like them, is no reason to complain in the Courthouse! She's an idiot, and a well-trained one at that! Eric The(SitDownAndShutUp!)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
Eric, you must mean "Jesusless bastids" as I believe Muslims, Jews and Christians of faith worship the same God. The Light Colonel has facts and right on her side. When leaving base she must be attired in traditional Muslim attire, be escorted by a male, not drive a car and if riding in a car sit in the backseat. Additionally the Lt Colonel is not a Muslim but a Christian. I'm certain this is fine with you but even if "Hun" approved this treatment is not equal and apparently isn't even required by our good 'friend' and ally Saudi Arabia. None of the females stationed in Arabia and attached to the embassy have to comply with these idiotic and demeaning rules. I belive State's rule is "Conservative and tasteful attire." Gentle people this is NOT another of those military female-demands-favoritism nor is it another military-female-can't-cut-it stories. This is a story of simple right and wrong. This is a story of attacks on the Lt. Colonel's Christian beliefs. Eric, I choose to believe you posted without the complete facts. Otherwise you have attacked an active-duty military person - Christian. By God she may be female and Military but she's a damned AMERICAN - one of 'ours'. And she's right and correct.
View Quote
Knew you'd want me to make this easier to find . [:D]
Link Posted: 1/20/2002 7:55:25 PM EDT
Post from rkbar15 -
I think that's the point. Why is she required to wear somthing that her male counterparts aren't. In fact they're forbidden to even if they wanted to.
View Quote
Think 'bra' rkbar15. That's something she is required to wear and her male counterparts aren't required to wear! In fact, they're forbidden to wear bras even if they wanted to.[:D]
I don't see the visiting female dignitaries and embassy staff forced to conform to "what MUSLIN women are expected to wear!"
View Quote
Then isn't that something that the military commanders need to discuss with the state department people. Meanwhile, this 35 y.o. LtCol is causing waves in a foreign country that is militarily allied with us during a time of military conflict! Should we support this kind of cheap theatrics by someone who runs straight to the press. You remember the press don't you, they're the ones who saw nothing wrong with the way Clinton handled the military! I 'spect they'll not support the military this time around either. Eric The(WhatDoYouThink?)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 1/20/2002 8:02:22 PM EDT
Her waver was for the required height requirement. She was one inch to short. When she demonstrated that she could operate the aircraft she was granted a waver. The armed forces grants wavers all the time to otherwise qualified servicemen. WTF does this have to do with the issue anyway? Put yourself in her place. Are you going to do something that is an affront to your Christian beliefs? Kind of makes me wonder what we're fighting and dying over there for.
Link Posted: 1/20/2002 8:02:30 PM EDT
The area outside of the base is not American property. She should have to respect the rules of whatever nation that she is in. This woman sounds like a spoiled little bitch.
Link Posted: 1/20/2002 8:14:39 PM EDT
Originally Posted By LongIslandShooter: The area outside of the base is not American property. She should have to respect the rules of whatever nation that she is in. This woman sounds like a spoiled little bitch.
View Quote
That's one of her points. There is no Saudi "rule" that requires her to wear an abaya. Are you saying that you'd have no problem wearing that if you were required to for PC?
Link Posted: 1/20/2002 8:16:20 PM EDT
Post from 5subslr5 -
Eric, you must mean "Jesusless bastids" as I believe Muslims, Jews and Christians of faith worship the same God.
View Quote
Nope, I meant what I said the way I said it! You can believe that Allah and Jehovah are the same all you want. The Allah described in the Koran bears no resemblance IMHO to the God described in the Bible.
Eric, I choose to believe you posted without the complete facts. Otherwise you have attacked an active-duty military person - Christian.
View Quote
Well, Mr. 5subslr5, I read the same facts as you presumably did, and I watched the same interview on 60 Minutes. So I believe that I have access to the same 'facts' as you do. Do not accuse me of 'attacking' an active-duty military female pilot, that sounds too harsh![:D] I'm merely saying that if a Christian fighter pilot for the US approached 60 Minutes to complain about not being able to wear his five by five Crucifix while off base in Saudi Arabia, I would not support him either. Not because I didn't support his Christian views, far from it, you know I would. But because a fighter pilot is based in Saudi Arabia to do one mission and one mission only - obey the lawful commands of his superiors in supporting a mission given them by their commander-in-chief. Anything that this pilot does to further that mission is [b]good[/b], anything that this pilot does to hinder, embarrass, frustrate, or jeopardize that mission is [b]bad[/b]. Are you with me so far? Good! If the female pilot had her mind on job #1, she would cut out the b.s. about what she had to wear, how she wore it, or whatever, and just do her job. Did you notice how she was skeered of the burkha and veil when the reporterette tried to get her to put it on? There was something, well, strange about her reticence. Hmmmm.
By God she may be female and Military but she's a damned AMERICAN - one of 'ours'. And she's right and correct.
View Quote
Hurrah! She's right and correct! Or is that correct and right? She may be both, but not on this little issue! And what a little issue it is, might I add. To think that others are dying in crashes, being injured and being subjected to all sorts of possible enemy action. And this little.... Eric The(Nevermind!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 1/20/2002 8:23:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/20/2002 10:31:03 PM EDT by stcyr]
So, for the sake of the dust-muffins' oil, you would allow any amount of subsurvience by your military? Remember the those bumper sticker slogans about how you support your men and women in the military? Were they just trendy bits of sticky-tape or were they a reflection of what you really meant? If so. where do you draw the line? How f*cking low do you demand your uniformed representatives to grovel to the the house of bin Saud? You refused to do it before King George – what happened since? I respectfully suggest that, if the U.S. is to fully accept the mantle of the world's most powerful nation, it should start to act the part I would also ask you, Eric, how come you so readily decide these and similar issues with majestic pronouncements from on high, regardless of evidence one way or the other. And without the apparent need to substanciate your edicts. Opinions are one thing, but your prejudgemental pronouncements regarding the out and out veracity or validity of almost any issue seem to me to be at variance with obligations of a moderator on any forum
Link Posted: 1/20/2002 8:27:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Think 'bra' rkbar15. That's something she is required to wear and her male counterparts aren't required to wear! In fact, they're forbidden to wear bras even if they wanted to.[:D]
View Quote
I don't think that's the issue. Funny but not the issue.
You remember the press don't you, they're the ones who saw nothing wrong with the way Clinton handled the military! I 'spect they'll not support the military this time around either. Eric The(WhatDoYouThink?)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
Then maybe the Pentagon should stop having press conference's every five minutes. Just for the record the Saudi's are not are friends.
Link Posted: 1/20/2002 8:30:21 PM EDT
If a male Lt. Col. were required to walk about or attend meetings with towel on his head, I would suggest that most members would be screaming for blood!
View Quote
Game. Set. Match.
Link Posted: 1/20/2002 8:34:54 PM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Did you notice how she was skeered of the burkha and veil when the reporterette tried to get her to put it on? There was something, well, strange about her reticence. Hmmmm. Eric The(Nevermind!)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
I thought that was a little odd also. She didn't come across well in the interview but I don't think her demeanor is the issue.
Link Posted: 1/20/2002 9:03:08 PM EDT
I'm shocked at some of the reactions here. When I visit someone else, I don't do things that are offensive or distaseful to them. I expect others to give me the same consideration when showing-up on my doorstep. You guys can argue politics, the military, history, the Constitution, etc., but there is a more fundamental issue here. It's their land and as polite and civilized guests, we need to show them the same consideration we would hope they would show to us if the situation were reversed.z
Link Posted: 1/20/2002 9:17:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/20/2002 9:46:30 PM EDT by stcyr]
Indisputedly, zoom! However the U.S. is only in Saudi to defend them and U.S interests. and we are talking about the only entity that keeps that House of bin Saud in power. And we are talking about all representatives of the U.S. armed forces, be they male or female. For Christ's sake, why the hell does it take a Limey like me. living in México, to point this out? Why should a female officer be required to act or dress any differently from her male counterpart – no matter where the hell they are serving and especially when they have already demonstrated their ability and willingness to put their neck on the line to safeguard that POS house of bin Saud? Everyone was screaming about the inequities suffered by Afghani women under the Taliban (veils etc) recently. But when a U.S. Lt Col. is subjects to the same BS, it suddenly seems that half this forum now supports the Taliban. You guys afraid of women or something?
Link Posted: 1/20/2002 9:17:46 PM EDT
Be that as it may, the fact is that any REASONABLE society would accept and permit American troops, who are there to defend that society against regional enemies, to do as they wish so long as they are polite and respectful of the local customs. They should not demand that those visiting servicemen observe those customs as the natives do, but to give respect to them. If this issue is so important to the Saudis, and they insist on their barbaric behavior that is so contrary to the very principles that our FREEDOM is founded on, then I say we're supporting the wrong damned side. We might get better terms from the Iraqis, or might have if we hadn't kicked the hell out of them in the war, anyway. Certainly we'd get better terms from the Iranians. They're pretty moderate for a Muslim nation. Flameproof suit is now on. Fire away! [pyro] [:)>] [pyro] [:)>] [pyro] [:)>] [pyro] [:)>] [pyro] [:)>] [pyro] [:)>] [pyro] [:)>] [pyro] [:)>] [pyro] [:)>] [pyro] [:)>] CJ
Link Posted: 1/20/2002 9:22:28 PM EDT
Originally Posted By zoom: ...It's their land and as polite and civilized guests, we need to show them the same consideration we would hope they would show to us if the situation were reversed.z
View Quote
If we are so concerned about their feelings, why don't they require the men to wear a towel and fan belt on their heads?
Link Posted: 1/20/2002 10:41:20 PM EDT
WTF? An American soldier is performing her duty and is ordered to wear religious clothes( not her own religion), act subordinate to subordinates, and claim that she is married to whoever is "escorting" her. These are crimes under our military law. She is not allowed to drive, sit in the front seat, or speak in public, even if on official buisness. All to apease the US military brass? The saudi's don't require it. They permit state dept. and others to wear whatever. They just ask for the dress to be conservitive. They ask the same of men. I can't believe you guys are siding with the saudi's against an American soldier. Just 'cus it's a woman you think she's a sniviling b***h? The saudi's are offended that we are even there, f**k 'em. They had a choice between being invaded by sadam or permit our base there. They knew what that meant then, and their not confused about it now. If the saudi's don't care why does our government force them to do this? I think you guys would talk a different tune if our gov was ordering the men to wear white dresses and pizza table cloths with fan belts on your heads( especially once you learn what they really mean, there not just decorative). Oh, and you have to prostrate your self 5 times a day while bowing and praying in arabic. Or your just a sniviling little b***h. And from now on you will wear the UN blue flag over the American Flag when in a foriegn country. You will deny being an American if asked. You will kiss the ring of the pope, or his representitives, and bow to the king, queen or any member of the royal family. You will kneel at the foot of the cheiftan, evert your eyes, kiss and wash his feet. It just the local customs. We don't want to offend anyone. They don't require it, but you have been ordered to do it anyway. You spoiled little b***h.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top