User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/17/2002 2:10:47 PM EDT
[#1]
It has as much to do with the men as with the women, Mr. Thompson says. "The problem is that the males get over-protective. In the Israeli Army in 1948, they were taking too many losses because men were protecting female soldiers in the ranks"--not only from wounding or death but also from capture. "The Israelis had a very good idea of what the Arabs would have done to a captured female soldier, even the body of a captured female soldier." The horrifying experience of captured American service-women during the Gulf War proves that this is still a threat (see below). I never did get to the see below part that explained the captured American service-women's experices during the Gulf War. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2002 2:17:36 PM EDT
[#2]
To: CatoRenasci I read somewhere that the Canadian military numbers 36,000. To put that in perspective, the New York City Police Department has 40,000 officers. This article was depressing. I found the story of the female marine prostituting herself worse than the two female POWs being raped and sodomized. I mean besides the whole matter that rape victims (and POWS in general) have no choice in what happens to them, its the fact that even in peacetime deployments, you hear stories of soldiers whoring themselves. Supply and demand being what that is, thats probably the least jealously inducing behavior. Its curious that this article says that 30% of unit should be female for integration to work. I suspect that thats because if many of the men in the unit are either happily married, have a serious girlfriend back home or well, not asking and not telling... 30% female population is enough that the remaining soliders who want a girlfriend can get one. When only a small percentage of the guys are getting laid, thats a recipe for sexual jealously. In the civilian world, any man who wants a girlfriend can meet one out in the world... but on a ship or out in the desert, good luck finding a singles bar (or a church singles club). 8 posted on 9/17/02 2:45 PM Pacific by Maximum Leader [ To 3 | View Replies ] |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2002 2:18:57 PM EDT
[#3]
From what I understand, there were two US women captured during the Gulf War. Both were gang raped by their captors.
I will go and fetch a link to see if my recollection is correct or not! BRB! I didn't have to go too far - I just finished the rest of the linked story: But there are greater perils to combat life than mere drunken lasciviousness. Army Major Rhonda Coraum testified in favour of admitting American women to combat roles before a 1992 presidential commission, even though she revealed that she and Army Specialist Melissa Coleman had been subjected to a special torture while they were held prisoner by the Iraqis during the Gulf War. They had both been raped and sodomized. "Do we really want women subjected to this?" asks Mr. Check. Eric The(Concerned)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2002 2:26:42 PM EDT
[#4]
Aaaaaa. Went loking for links and found this one.
[url]http://www.angelfire.com/il/sista/evidence.html[/url] Despite these restrictions the Gulf War allowed many women to serve in front-line combat situations. Seventeen women died and three women were taken prisoner in the Gulf War, proving that women are capable of handling the "harshness of war." Francke claims that men have been "obsessed" with the idea of women as prisoners of war (POW)(252). Francke looks at the testimony of Major Rhonda Cornum, a POW in Desert Storm, and illustrates how Cornum's experiences were twisted to portray her as a victim of her captors. According to Francke, Cornum's words were ignored: "Getting raped or abused or whatever is one more bad thing that can happen to you as a prisoner of war. There's about four-hundred bad things I can think of and it's not the worst of them" (253). Cornum considered her incident an "occupational hazard." This demonstrates the hardened mentality that is typical of today's female soldiers. I was surpised to read she actually said "Getting raped or abused or whatever is one more bad thing that can happen to you as a prisoner of war. There's about four-hundred bad things I can think of and it's not the worst of them" Were'd she grow up at??? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2002 2:28:05 PM EDT
[#5]
Another one.
[url]http://www.amazoncastle.com/feminism/ss2.shtml[/url] We already have examples of what happens when females are taken prisoners. Major Cornum in the Gulf War was on a helicopter flight that she was not supposed to be on and was taken prisoner. She was repeatedly raped and sodomized by her captors. We saw in Bosnia that the Serbs put the captured women into camps and repeatedly raped them until they became pregnant before freeing them. This is not the typical treatment of male POW's. Apparently our enemies and potential enemies are not concerned with political correctness and discrimination. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2002 2:31:55 PM EDT
[#6]
Can you imagine how disruptive that must be to front line male troops? Knowing that any women with whom they are serving (if women in combat goes forward) would be subjected to gang rape and sodomy, by the enemy?
That alone is a very, very good reason to go back to the ways that wars have always been fought! By men. Eric The(Period!)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2002 2:51:42 PM EDT
[#7]
I was out in the field once with a woman who was in my squad at PLDC. I know the guys and me made sure she was ok every step of the way.
No, no nothing like that. She was married and nice. I cannot imagine having to keep one eye out for boobie traps, one eye out for mines, one eye out for enemy personel, one eye out for my left foot getting in the way of my other left foot, one eye out for my crap, one eye out for a woman who no matter what you say I'll still look out for anyway. Not enough eyeballs to go around. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2002 2:53:54 PM EDT
[#8]
On a lighter note. If the following was true, an enterprising girl could retire after a sufficiently long combat tour.
Interestingly, the first proof that Canadian women in combat roles could undermine military preparedness may come from the bedroom and not the trenches. If sensational allegations made in the August issue of the independent Canadian military magazine esprit de corps are to be believed, four unmarried female peacekeepers were sent home from Cambodia this spring after getting pregnant. On top of that, the magazine reports, female Canadian Forces staff at the northern base of Alert "made a fortune" selling their sexual favours to male colleagues. And two female sailors on board the HMCS Protecteur during the 1991 Gulf War were also part-time prostitutes, the magazine charges. In a curious twist, a third woman who informed on the first two was countercharged by the pair for allegedly trying to seduce them into a lesbian relationship. The magazine claims all three were flown back to Canada in the middle of the war. The Department of National Defence (DND) has refused comment on the specific allegations made by esprit de corps. DND spokesman Susan Gray would only say, "This alleged prostitution in the forces is based solely on speculation and not fact." But the accusations do not surprise many military experts. Christopher Check, a former United States marine and now associate director of the Rockford Institute's Center on the Family in America, located in Rockford, I11., claims prostitution is one of the results of putting women in combat. "I know for certain there was a woman marine who was selling fellatio in the [washrooms] at a pier in Saudi Arabia," Mr. Check says. "I understand she was doing quite well for herself, too." |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2002 2:57:30 PM EDT
[#9]
I recall seeing photos from the Gulf War, where there was a platoon moving out across the desert. As the soldiers went strolling by the camera, there was a male soldier with his gear on his back walking next to a female soldier. The two were carrying her gear between them.
Which theoretically means that the male soldier will have carried 50% more weight by the time he finishes his march, than had the female been required to carry her own gear, solo. Now. If there's a firefight at the end of their march, will the male soldier be in as good of condition as he needs to be in to fight effectively, or will the female soldier, having been relieved of carrying one-half of her own gear, be able to take up his slack? Hmmm? Eric The(WomenToTheRear!)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2002 2:58:11 PM EDT
[#10]
OK,
Where did you guys get these 'sources'. And where did they get thier information? I ask because one of the quoted paragraphs doesnt get the number of POWs correct, and another takes congressional testimony out of context. And as far as I know, neither of the two women POWs have ever said that they were 'repeatedly gangraped and sodomized'. Major Cornum did say that she had been 'assaulted' (but not raped) during transport from crash site to detainment. And that is where the the line about there are 400 worst things that could happen comes in. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2002 3:31:37 PM EDT
[#11]
Where did you guys get these 'sources'. And where did they get their information? Don't know |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2002 3:46:27 PM EDT
[#12]
[IMG]http://webpages.charter.net/jeff.hoeft/pshop/WWIIPoster11.jpg[/IMG]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2002 3:55:46 PM EDT
[#13]
make it an MOS (69H for instance)! [}:D] ROTFLMAO! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2002 4:53:17 AM EDT
[#14]
Women are a PITA in the field. My (thankfuly limited) experience with them in uniform left a lasting, negative impression on me int hat regard.
PLDC, they were, with one notable exception, whiny, prissy, and a burden on the others in their squads. I have no respect for the men who fel under their wiley spell, but let's face it, if they hadn't been there they wouldn't have disrupted things. They even complained about MY cadences, which was the final straw[;)]. In a Basic Training their hijinx would fill a book-an adult book. In addition to having served as a DI, I have several female friends who were soldiers, and they tell the same stories-many of them should never have passed Basic and are given free rides, which continue on to their units. My $0.02 Tim |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2002 5:56:31 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: "Getting raped or abused or whatever is one more bad thing that can happen to you as a prisoner of war. Here the Major doesn't actually seem to say that she was raped ?? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2002 6:57:06 AM EDT
[#16]
Crap...we've beaten this thread to death several times, but it's worth another rant:
Women should [b]NOT[/b] serve in any type of combat unit, or for that matter in any support unit that might get into combat. They can serve in aircraft and aboard ships…(I don’t like that either!)…but NOT in grunt units. I don't think women should serve in combatant vessels either...but they are there now, thanks to our pal Bill and his fat-assed “wife” in loose shoes. The plan to put women aboard Navy combatants isn’t working out all that well, regardless of what you hear, either. Some of the current COs have told me horror stories about their women sailors. Interestingly enough, some of their best "female" swabs are tough-as-nails bull dykes that don't take any shit off of anyone...male or female. The Bull Chiefs are some of the meanest bitches ever! On the other hand, most of the women tend to be wussies. Women work out problems by group consensus. Men get in your face and threaten to rip your throat out if you pull that stupid-ass stunt again! The problems tend to be the cute little Mary Janes and Suzy Sweetpants types. Real soon, the hotties are hooked up with one [or more] of their male counterparts and friggin in the riggin gets to be more important than work. I even heard one story about a female officer one captain had that was screwing one of his male senior chiefs-an E-8. The CO finally fired the officer. The Fleet is full of these horror stories but the Navy brass refuses to reveal the true depth of the problem to the public, because it would hurt recruiting. Commanders are taking sailors to mast all the time for fraternization infractions. Recently when one carrier returned from deployment, dozens of the female sailors were pregnant. Now...THAT tends to be a problem for the married ones. Worst part is, those females are soon going to be losses to the ship. Then there are the married female sailors. They have an incredible advantage as to when they deploy...not the ship mind you...THEY. If perchance they should suddenly turn up in a family way just before the upcoming six month deployment, well...its shore duty time! Then she gets to cool her heels on the beach and raise her family until well after the birth of her baby. What a cool scam...for the females. The ship still goes but now the rest of the crew has to take up the slack for her absence. Back to the core issue: Women can’t hack it in a combat unit for lots of reasons. Fortunately, now that we have adults running the executive branch again, DACOWITS (aka NITWITS) is now GONE and with those loonies, also gone is their liberal, “Put women in ALL units, including subs and SEALS!” agenda. The rush to put girls in rifle shot range of the enemy has been halted…ad least for the time being. Fortunately, the girls can’t get into the SPECWARFARE units. Maybe it’s really a good thing that we are moving the military warfighting emphasis to these units. Cuts the girls out more. My $0.02? Our military has become way too much Martha Stewart and the Lifetime channel and not nearly enough Lee Ermey! Hopefully, Bush will be able to fix more of this during his second term. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2002 8:52:18 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: Crap...we've beaten this thread to death several times, but it's worth another rant: Women should [b]NOT[/b] serve in any type of combat unit, or for that matter in any support unit that might get into combat. They can serve in aircraft and aboard ships…(I don’t like that either!)…but NOT in grunt units. I don't think women should serve in combatant vessels either...but they are there now, thanks to our pal Bill and his fat-assed “wife” in loose shoes. The plan to put women aboard Navy combatants isn’t working out all that well, regardless of what you hear, either. Some of the current COs have told me horror stories about their women sailors. Interestingly enough, some of their best "female" swabs are tough-as-nails bull dykes that don't take any shit off of anyone...male or female. The Bull Chiefs are some of the meanest bitches ever! On the other hand, most of the women tend to be wussies. Women work out problems by group consensus. Men get in your face and threaten to rip your throat out if you pull that stupid-ass stunt again! The problems tend to be the cute little Mary Janes and Suzy Sweetpants types. Real soon, the hotties are hooked up with one [or more] of their male counterparts and friggin in the riggin gets to be more important than work. I even heard one story about a female officer one captain had that was screwing one of his male senior chiefs-an E-8. The CO finally fired the officer. The Fleet is full of these horror stories but the Navy brass refuses to reveal the true depth of the problem to the public, because it would hurt recruiting. Commanders are taking sailors to mast all the time for fraternization infractions. Recently when one carrier returned from deployment, dozens of the female sailors were pregnant. Now...THAT tends to be a problem for the married ones. Worst part is, those females are soon going to be losses to the ship. Then there are the married female sailors. They have an incredible advantage as to when they deploy...not the ship mind you...THEY. If perchance they should suddenly turn up in a family way just before the upcoming six month deployment, well...its shore duty time! Then she gets to cool her heels on the beach and raise her family until well after the birth of her baby. What a cool scam...for the females. The ship still goes but now the rest of the crew has to take up the slack for her absence. Back to the core issue: Women can’t hack it in a combat unit for lots of reasons. Fortunately, now that we have adults running the executive branch again, DACOWITS (aka NITWITS) is now GONE and with those loonies, also gone is their liberal, “Put women in ALL units, including subs and SEALS!” agenda. The rush to put girls in rifle shot range of the enemy has been halted…ad least for the time being. Fortunately, the girls can’t get into the SPECWARFARE units. Maybe it’s really a good thing that we are moving the military warfighting emphasis to these units. Cuts the girls out more. My $0.02? Our military has become way too much Martha Stewart and the Lifetime channel and not nearly enough Lee Ermey! Hopefully, Bush will be able to fix more of this during his second term. Agreed. Women shouldn't be in the Military(or at least in a fighting, front line position.) |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
