Rape and abuse, must this be the price women pay for serving their country?

[Alonzo]

SHELTON, WASH. - In January 2006, US Army Specialist Suzanne Swift went absent without leave (AWOL) from her unit, the 54th MP Company, rather than return to.

She claimed to have suffered repeated sexual harassment and abuse, and blamed a chain of command whose members variously refused to stop it, participated in it, and accused her of bringing it on herself. She was arrested on June 11.

Now, an Army investigation is under way to determine the merits of her allegations and whether she should be punished for going AWOL. Meanwhile, she has been assigned to another unit and is largely restricted to Ft. Lewis, Washington.

Not surprisingly, Specialist Swift's case is attracting attention from the antiwar left. But this case is different. Unlike another Fort Lewis soldier, 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, who has refused to go to Iraq on the grounds that the war is illegal and immoral, Specialist Swift claims that her refusal to return to Iraq is based upon the harassment and assault she suffered on her first deployment.

Her lawyer, Larry Hildes, a member of the left-leaning National Lawyer's Guild Military Law Taskforce, is seeking an honorable discharge for Swift, along with full veterans' benefits for the posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) allegedly caused by the abuse.

At one level, this case is nonsense. Swift has no legal right to refuse service in Iraq or anywhere else because her fellow soldiers may have committed crimes against her. If her emotional state is such that she can no longer function as a soldier, she should be honorably discharged and receive appropriate treatment and compensation.

But at a deeper level, Swift's case suggests that it is time for the US Army – for all the services – to answer one question: Must American servicewomen continue to regard sexual harassment, assault, and rape as part of the price they must pay for serving their nation in uniform?

When conscription ended in 1973, the services began taking more women (currently 15 percent of the military). With their generally better test scores and behavior, they would make up for all the high-quality men who weren't joining (and are not joining now). But the services expected women to remain second-class support troops even while moving them ever closer to combat.

This profound hypocrisy left women vulnerable. Good men could not depend upon them in a fight, jerks felt free to disrespect and harass them, and predators felt free to prey upon them. All too often, the command structure seemed more concerned with keeping them in their place or getting them out than with either justice or military effectiveness.

This is changing. Since September 2001, more than 146,000 servicewomen have gone to war. Many air and naval combat specialties were opened to women in the 1980s and '90s, due to sustained assault by an antimilitary feminist movement. But now, as a matter of military necessity, women are serving with small infantry and special operations units from which they are still legally barred. Full equality under arms isn't quite there yet. But it's happening.

Further, servicewomen now seem more likely to report sexual harassment and rape, while the military, having made a sustained and serious attempt to reduce sexual harassment, is now doing the same for sexual assault.

But the solution isn't merely strict enforcement of the laws against sexual harassment and assault. It's certainly not sensitivity training, because these criminals are sensitive to other people's pain: they like it. The solution is for the brothers – of all ranks – to inform the perpetrators and their collaborators and sympathizers: "If you do this to our sisters, you're not our brother." The brothers must insist that their chain of command back them when informal censure and shunning aren't enough. Every unit has its share of criminals and dirtbags. The issue is, who sets the tone? It's time for the good men to set the tone.

I have seen this happening in Iraq's Sunni Triangle, where men kept an informal guard over the only all-female shower at Camp Junction City. I saw it inÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Afghanistan, where an infantryman warned me that he and his buddies had heard a serial rapist was operating down at Bagram Air Field and they hoped to find him. And I saw it in America, where a National Guard colonel who had problems with male troops from another (badly led) unit intruding upon his female troops in their shower told those soldiers, "You are armed. Buttstroke these men, and I will back you."

American servicewomen do not need more rules and regulations. They do not need the support of a feminist movement that, since 2001, has ignored their valor. They need the respect they have earned from their brothers, and the mutual protection that soldiers owe one another.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20060731/cm_csm/ysolaro;_ylt=AkSant0CckjZJ9SVqGzTyv6s0NUE;_ylu=X3o DMTA3YWFzYnA2BHNlYwM3NDI-

[dsanthony]

SHELTON, WASH. - In January 2006, US Army Specialist Suzanne Swift went absent without leave (AWOL) from her unit, the 54th MP Company, rather than return to.

She claimed to have suffered repeated sexual harassment and abuse, and blamed a chain of command whose members variously refused to stop it, participated in it, and accused her of bringing it on herself. She was arrested on June 11.

Now, an Army investigation is under way to determine the merits of her allegations and whether she should be punished for going AWOL. Meanwhile, she has been assigned to another unit and is largely restricted to Ft. Lewis, Washington.

Not surprisingly, Specialist Swift's case is attracting attention from the antiwar left. But this case is different. Unlike another Fort Lewis soldier, 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, who has refused to go to Iraq on the grounds that the war is illegal and immoral, Specialist Swift claims that her refusal to return to Iraq is based upon the harassment and assault she suffered on her first deployment.

Her lawyer, Larry Hildes, a member of the left-leaning National Lawyer's Guild Military Law Taskforce, is seeking an honorable discharge for Swift, along with full veterans' benefits for the posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) allegedly caused by the abuse.

At one level, this case is nonsense. Swift has no legal right to refuse service in Iraq or anywhere else because her fellow soldiers may have committed crimes against her. If her emotional state is such that she can no longer function as a soldier, she should be honorably discharged and receive appropriate treatment and compensation.

But at a deeper level, Swift's case suggests that it is time for the US Army – for all the services – to answer one question: Must American servicewomen continue to regard sexual harassment, assault, and rape as part of the price they must pay for serving their nation in uniform?

When conscription ended in 1973, the services began taking more women (currently 15 percent of the military). With their generally better test scores and behavior, they would make up for all the high-quality men who weren't joining (and are not joining now). But the services expected women to remain second-class support troops even while moving them ever closer to combat.

This profound hypocrisy left women vulnerable. Good men could not depend upon them in a fight, jerks felt free to disrespect and harass them, and predators felt free to prey upon them. All too often, the command structure seemed more concerned with keeping them in their place or getting them out than with either justice or military effectiveness.

This is changing. Since September 2001, more than 146,000 servicewomen have gone to war. Many air and naval combat specialties were opened to women in the 1980s and '90s, due to sustained assault by an antimilitary feminist movement. But now, as a matter of military necessity, women are serving with small infantry and special operations units from which they are still legally barred. Full equality under arms isn't quite there yet. But it's happening.

Further, servicewomen now seem more likely to report sexual harassment and rape, while the military, having made a sustained and serious attempt to reduce sexual harassment, is now doing the same for sexual assault.

But the solution isn't merely strict enforcement of the laws against sexual harassment and assault. It's certainly not sensitivity training, because these criminals are sensitive to other people's pain: they like it. The solution is for the brothers – of all ranks – to inform the perpetrators and their collaborators and sympathizers: "If you do this to our sisters, you're not our brother." The brothers must insist that their chain of command back them when informal censure and shunning aren't enough. Every unit has its share of criminals and dirtbags. The issue is, who sets the tone? It's time for the good men to set the tone.

I have seen this happening in Iraq's Sunni Triangle, where men kept an informal guard over the only all-female shower at Camp Junction City. I saw it inÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Afghanistan, where an infantryman warned me that he and his buddies had heard a serial rapist was operating down at Bagram Air Field and they hoped to find him. And I saw it in America, where a National Guard colonel who had problems with male troops from another (badly led) unit intruding upon his female troops in their shower told those soldiers, "You are armed. Buttstroke these men, and I will back you."

American servicewomen do not need more rules and regulations. They do not need the support of a feminist movement that, since 2001, has ignored their valor. They need the respect they have earned from their brothers, and the mutual protection that soldiers owe one another.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20060731/cm_csm/ysolaro;_ylt=AkSant0CckjZJ9SVqGzTyv6s0NUE;_ylu=X3o DMTA3YWFzYnA2BHNlYwM3NDI-


It's a good thing she didn't work for Clinton. She'd have to deal with James Carville calling her "trailer park trash" on national television.

[Mayberry]

If you ask me, this is why women don't belong in combat units. I was in the Navy, and fortunately, I left my ship just before the first women came aboard. I've heard horror stories from guys that were on ships with women. I'm not saying what happened is right, it's just something that was bound to happen. You'll never prevent every occurrence, no matter what you do.

[Alonzo]

Women shouldn't be in combat units because military men are too boorish, violent and disgusting to control themselves?

I'm not sure how if I feel about that one.

[dsanthony]

If you ask me, this is why women don't belong in combat units. I was in the Navy, and fortunately, I left my ship just before the first women came aboard. I've heard horror stories from guys that were on ships with women. I'm not saying what happened is right, it's just something that was bound to happen. You'll never prevent every occurrence, no matter what you do.


The issue of sexual violence or sexual harrassment is a good reason to keep women out of combat. As bad as the victimization of women during peacetime, is the chance of placing women at the hands of the enemy. There was a lightly publicized case of a US Army Officer who was raped by Iraqis after being captured during the first Gulf War.

[lily]

If you ask me, this is why women don't belong in combat units. I was in the Navy, and fortunately, I left my ship just before the first women came aboard. I've heard horror stories from guys that were on ships with women. I'm not saying what happened is right, it's just something that was bound to happen. You'll never prevent every occurrence, no matter what you do.


It's hard to tell the sex of posters, by the names they use. I think mine is rather obvious.

I'm going to have to totally agree with you Mayberry. Women don't belong in combat units. They also don't belong in a war zone. .......be that job just driving a truck to feeding the troops.

I have no doubt that there are many women who want to serve their country, but they can do it right here, state side. If that makes me a sexist, so be it.

[Cobra]

I think the military should work on this issue, if it is a big problem. Rape and sexual harassment is unacceptable and should be delt with in all parts of our society. Woman serve in the armed forces, they are not going anywhere and our country needs them.

I think woman should be allowed to serve in all parts of the armed forces and in combat if they meet the requirements for those jobs. Just being a woman should not exclude you. You can be raped anywhere, military or not. Woman should be informed of the risks of serving in combat but they should be able to choose to take those risks by joining the military in positions that could have them put into combat. If they are raped by fellow soldiers in peacetime the chain of command should get their act together and deal with the issue properly and decisively.

[Cobra]

I have no doubt that there are many women who want to serve their country, but they can do it right here, state side. If that makes me a sexist, so be it.
If they are capable of serving in combat, why not.

Woman should have as much choice as men when choosing their career path and the risks they are willing to take for the sake of their country. Not allowing woman to control their own lives as much as men and serve or work in whatever field they are capable in, is sexist IMO. Just because combat is something most woman would not want to do or be good at should not keep the few woman who do want and are capable of serving their country in combat from doing it because of some shitty laws men created to hold woman back or because their sexist themselves and could not imagine serving with a woman.

[lily]

Cobra........as I said on my original post, if that makes me sexist, then so be it. I'm old and set in my ways.;) I'd go with the standard answer and say that women, by nature are nurtures and not killers...but then I have the daily papers showing me that I am wrong.

Let's just go with basic nature, shall we? An army unit full of men. The way this war is going, there are no leaves. At the end of 6-12 months, anything looks good.

Not good enough reason? Ok, One woman among 12 men. She chooses one. There's going to be some hard feelings with at least 6 of the other men and they've got enough on their minds.

I'll re-consider my opinion, if and when they change the don't ask, don't tell rule.

Now, I've given you 4 IMO good reasons.......change my mind.

I'll even help you........after re-reading my post, I did think of one good thing a woman could contribute and that would be to search female suspects, without further damaging the culture exchange. But then, a better person to do that job than an American, would be an Iraqi woman.

[Cobra]

Now, I've given you 4 IMO good reasons.......change my mind.
You may have just given me an impossible task lily considering you just said you were pretty set in your ways, but I'll give it my best shot.
Let's just go with basic nature, shall we? An army unit full of men. The way this war is going, there are no leaves. At the end of 6-12 months, anything looks good. Not good enough reason?
Nope, not a good reason. They'll just have to control themselves. At the end of 6-12 months if anything looks good the politicians better get to work on banning everyone from serving in a war zone that long or just banning everyone from combat, because if anything looks good all those men might start becoming sexully attracted to one another and we can't have that happen even on rare occasions.
Ok, One woman among 12 men. She chooses one. There's going to be some hard feelings with at least 6 of the other men and they've got enough on their minds.
That is certainly a possibility but it's not a good reason to keep woman from serving in combat roles. Two male soldiers could just as easily want the same non-military woman and have hard feeling for each other.

They’ve got enough on their minds, people are not going to spend a lot of time thinking about romantic relationships and jealousy during combat so the fact some guys may be jealous of another because of a romantic relationship should not affect much. Not to mention, who says romantic relationships between woman and their fellow male soldiers serving a combat tour together would be widespread and prevalent.I would venture to guess many would already have husbands or boyfriends just like their male counter parts.
I'll re-consider my opinion, if and when they change the don't ask, don't tell rule.
They should definiently change that rule, but people are as homophobic as they are sexist so I don't see it happening anytime soon.
But then, a better person to do that job than an American, would be an Iraqi woman.Maybe but how do you know we could get enough woman to work for us, against their culture and all, not to mention the Iraqis don't like us to much and that is an extremly dangerous job most woman would not wan't. We also couldn't really trust them.

[Mayberry]

not to mention the Iraqis don't like us to much Seems like you get your information from Chicken Noodle News. My brother in law's brother returned from Iraq recently and he said the Iraqis he met were greatful to us for removing Saddam, and they want us to stay. I'll take straight from the horse's mouth over the media any day. They should definiently change that rule, but people are as homophobic as they are sexist so I don't see it happening anytime soon. Like I said, women don't belong in combat units. Would you want Christopher Lowell standing next to you in a combat zone? I sure as hell wouldn't. It comes down to this: Your LIFE depends on the guy standing next to you. The plain fact is, that the majority of women aren't up to the task. Like Lily said, maternal instincts have no place on the battle field. One guy I knew in the Navy told me about a woman who refused to do her job because she just had her nails done. Do you want her next to you on the battle field? And our service men necessarily have to bunk together in extremely close quarters. Do you want to bunk with 40 gays in a 90 man berth? I sure as hell don't. There isn't enough resources to provide separate male, gay, female, and lesbian quarters, which is what would have to happen if the military abandoned the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Military men are generally conservative by nature, and homosexuals WILL be dealt with harshly. Face the facts. And don't call it homophobia just because someone else doesn't agree with it. I don't fear gays, I just don't like them. Some of us still have morals.

[Cobra]

Seems like you get your information from Chicken Noodle News. My brother in law's brother returned from Iraq recently and he said the Iraqis he met were greatful to us for removing Saddam, and they want us to stay. I'll take straight from the horse's mouth over the media any day.
I've had relatives and friends that served in Iraq to, they said you couldn't turn your back on many Iraqis and they'd rather shoot you than look at you. I'm sure different soldiers in different areas see different thing over there, but just to say if the Iraqis like us so much why all the protests and us having such a hard time controlling and not getting our troops blown up over there.
Your LIFE depends on the guy standing next to you. The plain fact is, that the majority of women aren't up to the task.
and that should not exclude the ones who are up to and can do the job, maybe even better then some men. Would you want a guy standing next to you that wasn't up to the task or a woman that was when your life is going to be on the line.
Like Lily said, maternal instincts have no place on the battle field.
So all woman would have maternal instincts in the face of the enemy, stereotypical bullshit more likely. You should judge people on an individual basis not by the group, race, sex, or anothers you can think up.
One guy I knew in the Navy told me about a woman who refused to do her job because she just had her nails done. Do you want her next to you on the battle field?
Would you want the guy who wouldn't leave his room until his hair was done up just right on the battlefield next to you. All woman do not act that way that is again some stereotypical bullshit, and if you have looked at our fine ladies serving in Iraq right now I'll bet you'll find few if any with manicured nails unwilling to do the job. Also check out the marine corps training woman go through, it aint no cake walk and most men would rather have one of those ladies on a battlefield with him than some air force guy who wasn't a truly well trained infantry man.
And our service men necessarily have to bunk together in extremely close quarters. Do you want to bunk with 40 gays in a 90 man berth? I sure as hell don't.
No I wouldn't mind, gays don't bother me. See I'm not really worried about how people want to fuck, it's their business. And if your not gay or interested in gays those bunking with you wouldn't even bother with you.

There isn't enough resources to provide separate male, gay, female, and lesbian quarters, which is what would have to happen if the military abandoned the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
No there isn't and doesn't need to be. Don’t ask don't tell doesn't keep the gays and lesbians out of the military and your bunk ya know. I just read a study a few months ago that said there was more lesbians in the military than in the general population, something I can easily believe.

Military men are generally conservative by nature, and homosexuals WILL be dealt with harshly.
And that is a problem with military men that would have to be dealt with harshly by the chain of command, which also needs to be fix and that and woman’s issues. Would you rather spend some time in the brig that led to a dishonorable discharge than leave your gay brother in arms un-molested and let him do his job.

Face the facts. And don't call it homophobia just because someone else doesn't agree with it. I don't fear gays, I just don't like them. Some of us still have morals.
and morals that would have you dislike someone and deny them rights because of who they choose to sleep with our some shitty morals to have IMO and yes it called homophobia when you don't like gays because they are gay.

[Mayberry]

and morals that would have you dislike someone and deny them rights because of who they choose to sleep with our some sh1tty morals to have IMO and yes it called homophobia when you don't like gays because they are gay Fine, call it what you like. I still believe homosexuality is wrong, sick, immoral, and unnatural. I don't want them sleeping in the same berth as me. I shouldn't be punished for not wanting them in the same berth as me. Gays forcing their lifestyle on people who don't accept it are doing themselves more harm than good. Do what you want in the privacy of your own home, just don't expect me to like it. Don’t ask don't tell doesn't keep the gays and lesbians out of the military and your bunk ya know. I realize that, but they keep it to themselves, as they should. Allowing openly gay men in the military is asking for trouble, and separate berthing would be absolutely necessary.

[Cobra]

Gays forcing their lifestyle on people who don't accept it are doing themselves more harm than good. Do what you want in the privacy of your own home, just don't expect me to like it.
Unless a gay forces you to have gay sex they are not forcing their lifestyle on you. You are the one forcing your lifestyle on them by forcing them to hide or deny who they are if they want to work or have any associations with you in any environment. They just want to be who they are, you don't have to like it but accept it as something they have a right to just like you have the right to be strait and have sex with the opposite sex.

Your making rules banning them for who they are but you can claim with a strait face that their the ones forcing their lifestyle on you.

[Alonzo]

Mayberry, what's the difference between what you propose and refusing to work with a Jew or a Muslim? Also, homophobe means hate or fear of homosexuals. It is not the same as a psychological condition like a fear of heights.

I think it's ridiculous we'd ban women though. I mean why should scrawny men be allowed and tough women banned? Sure, men are biologically stronger on average, and would likely always be statistically dominant (due to both social and biological factors), but there are plenty of women who can perform just as well. Even if there's only one woman, if she meets the qualifications then she should be let in. Whoever can meet the physical requirements should be treated equally.

Historically, female soldiers have performed well. Celtic women fought against the romans (who were awed by their performance), some tribal groups have female soldiers, they fought in the civil war (hid their identity) and earned medals. The soviets employed female soldiers for bombing, snipers etc. The Israeli army also uses women in combat roles, and their role has been steadily increasing.

Here's an interesting comment from an Israeli soldier in 2003:


Â*Â*Â*Â*Sgt. Pini, one of the male members of Carcal, said he initially joined the company because he was promised a tour of duty on a tranquil border in a unit with "a lot of girls."
Â*Â*Â*Â*"I thought, 'Great, I'll have a girlfriend,' " he said. "It didn't work out that way. When you spend so much time together, it doesn't make a difference. Everyone becomes one of the guys."
Â*Â*Â*Â*The army has told the coed company that it probably will get transferred next year to a more sensitive site, which could mean the tense border with Lebanon or Israel's hotly contested security barrier in the West Bank.


The history of women in combat is sketchy, but what is there shows that they deserve to be there.

Though we probably should make sure women are fully informed about how dangerous their fellow soldiers can be to them, and that their commanding officers may be complicit. It's disgusting that that's the case, but it's entirely the fault of the soldiers and their commanders. Until that changes, they should be given full warning.

[Mayberry]

Mayberry, what's the difference between what you propose and refusing to work with a Jew or a Muslim? Also, homophobe means hate or fear of homosexuals. There's a world of difference. I neither fear nor hate anyone, I just don't agree with their lifestyle, and don't want to be subjected to it. So calling me a homophobe is a misnomer. I think it's ridiculous we'd ban women though. O.K., if for some reason the draft might be re-instated, would you want YOUR daughter going to war? I don't. If you desire true equality, women would have to be included in the draft. The simple fact is, that a large majority of women aren't suitable for combat duty. Who determines who is suitable? That opens a whole new can of worms. Allowing big burly women to go to war is not a problem for me. Allowing a petite girl is.

[Cobra]

If you desire true equality, women would have to be included in the draft.
and should be IMO, woman have just as much at stake when it come to protecting this country as the men.

Edited, sory about that mayberry read your post wrong.

[Alonzo]

There's a world of difference. I neither fear nor hate anyone, I just don't agree with their lifestyle, and don't want to be subjected to it. So calling me a homophobe is a misnomer.

You don't think they should be treated equally, even though their biological characteristics (strength, endurance etc.) are equal to other men. Below you even stated you have no problem with a "big burly" woman in the military. Right there, most will be heterosexual and attracted to men. You are making a special exception for homosexuals, one you do not make for women with the same sexual desires.

But why is it ok to be forced to be in the same unit as a muslim, jews, or any religion you think is wrong, immoral etc., but it's not ok to be forced to be in the same unit with a homosexual?

O.K., if for some reason the draft might be re-instated, would you want YOUR daughter going to war? I don't. If you desire true equality, women would have to be included in the draft. The simple fact is, that a large majority of women aren't suitable for combat duty. Who determines who is suitable? That opens a whole new can of worms. Allowing big burly women to go to war is not a problem for me. Allowing a petite girl is.

I would not want my son or daughter to go to war, and I would do everything possible to get them out of it if they didn't want to go. Hell, I'd set them up in Canada (or wherever was suitable) if they wanted it and I could afford it.

But I would not be more opposed to my son going than my daughter. If I thought one could handle it better than I'd be more concerned about that one, and if my son was that one then I'd be more concerned about him going. If there is a draft then everyone should be eligible. It's not right to raise the risk of men being drafted due to some absurd concept of femininity. If they have the physical capabilities then they should get all the positives and negatives of everyone else. Set a bar, you have X capabilities then you can fight, if you don't then you can't.

[Rider]

Well, I may as well wade in here; seems like a lively discussion. IMO homosexuals/women in the military are two separate issues and should be considered independently.
There are few things more essential to victory in combat than unit cohesion and esprit de corps. The introduction of openly homosexual men to a unit may very well damage the ability of that unit to perform in a manner necessary to be successful. While many men (me included) have no real problem serving with homosexuals many others are very much opposed. The risk to unit morale outweighs the issue of fairness in this case.
Women are a critical component of our armed forces and have been for around a century or so. Our military would be devastated if women were to suddenly leave en masse. The critical issue is women serving in combat. The military is like no other part of our society. It isn't even a democratic institution. It is NOT a jobs program. Equal opportunity does not come into play here. Effectiveness is not just the prime consideration, it is the ONLY consideration. Anyone who believes that training, discipline and regulations are going to change male/female relations and behavior is living in a delusion. Men will never act/react toward women the way they do to other men. The reverse is also true. It is simply a fact of life that women will never be able to keep up with men physically in a field enviorment. No women will be able to shoulder 70-80lbs of gear and walk 12 or so hours and then engage in violent combat. How many times has the tide of a pitched battle been turned due to a handful of men choosing the "fight" part of the fight/flight decision on a testosterone rush no woman will ever experience? "Seeing red" is not an idle phrase. It takes about 10 support personnel to back up 1 trigger puller. There is no shortage of need or opportunites for our female citizens; just not in combat.

[Nathan Brazil]

Of COURSE she should be punished for her unauthorized absence. Her correct course of action was to notify her chain of command, and if that didn't produce results she had recourse to the chaplain and the medical people, in addition to who knows what other kinds of sob-sister skating places the Army's grown since the Navy was raped in the Tail Hook scandal.

[Nathan Brazil]

Women shouldn't be in combat units because military men are too boorish, violent and disgusting to control themselves?

I'm not sure how if I feel about that one.


No, women shouldn't be in military units because they cause problems. Women sleep with the boss all the time to get ahead in the civillian world, do you think things are different in the military? Not to mention the wonderfully effect any accusation of sexual harassment will do to a man's career.

Note that I said "accusation", I didn't say "conviction". All it takes is the accusation, and that career will stop dead in its tracks.

Guarandamnteed that if you ain't been in the military you don't have a clue.

[Nathan Brazil]

and morals that would have you dislike someone and deny them rights because of who they choose to sleep with our some shitty morals to have IMO and yes it called homophobia when you don't like gays because they are gay.


It's not a right to serve in the military, it's a privelege. And privileges can be restricted at any time.

[Nathan Brazil]

Unless a gay forces you to have gay sex they are not forcing their lifestyle on you. You are the one forcing your lifestyle on them by forcing them to hide or deny who they are if they want to work or have any associations with you in any environment.

Once a man had the upper bunk in a three-tier bunk room, and I had the middle. Bob Above liked to sleep nekkid on the submarine. Then when he got up he liked to stand in front of his bunk, nekkid, and fumble around inside his bunkpan getting clothes or whatever.

I told him he shouldn't do that, that in polite stag societies the men didn't wander around nekkid, but Bob Above wouldn't listen. I got rather tired of it, after a while, since I had to wait for Bob to get out of my way so I could get up. And then I noticed a strange thing. Whenever Bob Above was getting his stuff from his bunk, there was a snake! peeking into my curtained enclosure. This was just intolerable.

Was I forcing my lifestyle on Bob Above when I took that snake firmly in hand and ran around the ship with it, or was he forcing his lifestyle on me by refusing to conform to the cultural mores of the stag society on the boat?

Needless to say, that snake stayed covered up from then on.

[Cobra]

And privileges can be restricted at any time.

So can rights, they’re not guaranteed just like privileges.

[Alonzo]

Of COURSE she should be punished for her unauthorized absence.Â*Â*Her correct course of action was to notify her chain of command, and if that didn't produce results she had recourse to the chaplain and the medical people, in addition to who knows what other kinds of sob-sister skating places the Army's grown since the Navy was raped in the Tail Hook scandal.


What exactly do you think of women Nathan?

[Nathan Brazil]

And privileges can be restricted at any time.

So can rights, they’re not guaranteed just like privileges.


Okay, we've established that you don't know the difference between rights and priveleges.

What's next?

[Nathan Brazil]

Of COURSE she should be punished for her unauthorized absence.Â*Â*Her correct course of action was to notify her chain of command, and if that didn't produce results she had recourse to the chaplain and the medical people, in addition to who knows what other kinds of sob-sister skating places the Army's grown since the Navy was raped in the Tail Hook scandal.


What exactly do you think of women Nathan?


Pretty much the same as I think of everyone else. Are you responding to my post in any useful way, or just plying the old ad hominem attack path because you can't counter valid arguments?

[Alonzo]

Nathan, you repeatedly attack anything regarding women. You seem to dismiss the issue here as insignificant. Your opinion of women is a valid question considering this issue deals directly with women.

[Nathan Brazil]

Nathan, you repeatedly attack anything regarding women. You seem to dismiss the issue here as insignificant. Your opinion of women is a valid question considering this issue deals directly with women.


You've failed to respond to what I suggested soldierette in question should have done to address a perceived case of rape and/or harassment, which is to follow the chain of command. You desire to ignore this indicates you're either ignorant of life in the military or you don't desire to address the specific problem but seek instead to wander off the thread in search of tired fields to plow.

How about if you address the specifics for a change?

[Cobra]

Okay, we've established that you don't know the difference between rights and priveleges.
I know the difference and the point I made in that post is valid, rights can be taken away at anytime.

As for serving in the military being a privilege, true enough but it is an organization controlled by the government and it rules can be changed at the people’s discretion. One day the majority of American are going to see woman in combat as acceptable and the rule will change.

[Nathan Brazil]

Okay, we've established that you don't know the difference between rights and priveleges.
I know the difference and the point I made in that post is valid, rights can be taken away at anytime.

As for serving in the military being a privilege, true enough but it is an organization controlled by the government and it rules can be changed at the people’s discretion. One day the majority of American are going to see woman in combat as acceptable and the rule will change.



No, first off, if you postulate that rights exist, a notion to which I do not subscribe, then you can't be denied them. You may be prevented from exercising them, such as the "right" to free speech, but you still have the right.

A privelege is something that others permit you to do. It's the difference between having the right to speak freely, and getting a shot at the Attila the Hun Chair and the EIB Golden Microphone.

[Nathan Brazil]

Now....explain why anyone would want women in combat.

[Rider]

"Of COURSE she should be punished for her unauthorized absence. Her correct course of action was to notify her chain of command, and if that didn't produce results she had recourse to the chaplain and the medical people"

This is exactly what I meant about the special nature of the military. All personnel should be held to the same standards. Women cannot be treated with special consideration because of their sex.

[Nathan Brazil]

"Of COURSE she should be punished for her unauthorized absence. Her correct course of action was to notify her chain of command, and if that didn't produce results she had recourse to the chaplain and the medical people"

This is exactly what I meant about the special nature of the military. All personnel should be held to the same standards. Women cannot be treated with special consideration because of their sex.


My experience with women in the military is that yes, they do indeed expect special treatment because of their breasts.

The Navy had to stop enlisting females in the Nuclear Power Program because they clogged up shore billets and had a most deplorable habit of getting themselves knocked up and discharged after they completed a quarter million dollars worth of training but before the taxpayers got any functional use out of them...well, maybe one taxpayer did, anyway.

[Alonzo]

You've failed to respond to what I suggested soldierette in question should have done to address a perceived case of rape and/or harassment, which is to follow the chain of command.Â*Â*You desire to ignore this indicates you'reÂ*Â*either ignorant of life in the military or you don't desire to address the specific problem but seek instead to wander off the thread in search of tired fields to plow.

How about if you address the specifics for a change?


The only thing you seem to be complaining about is sex, yet women already work with men in the military, they are in combat units with men in Israel, and have been in combat units with men in previous historical times. There aren't reports of orgies and rampant pregnancies there. Do you have hard evidence otherwise?

But Nathan, you've denounced women voting, made insults to pregnant women, and with this quote:

in addition to who knows what other kinds of sob-sister skating places the Army's grown since the Navy was raped in the Tail Hook scandal.

Seem to belittle rape and harrassment victims. It seems as if you believe that we take such actions too seriously. The chain of command is also part of the problem here, and that was one of the points of the article. Many don't do anything.

Considering this centers on women, it is entirely appropriate to want to know whether you are looking at this situation as it stands, or whether a separate prejudice against women is driving your opinion. If it's the latter, then there's nothing I can say.

[lily]

Nathan Brazil



I told him he shouldn't do that, that in polite stag societies the men didn't wander around nekkid, but Bob Above wouldn't listen.Â*Â*I got rather tired of it, after a while, since I had to wait for Bob to get out of my way so I could get up.Â*Â*And then I noticed a strange thing.Â*Â*Whenever Bob Above was getting his stuff from his bunk, there was a snake! peeking into my curtained enclosure.Â*Â*This was just intolerable.

Was I forcing my lifestyle on Bob Above when I took that snake firmly in hand and ran around the ship with it, or was he forcing his lifestyle on me by refusing to conform to the cultural mores of the stag society on the boat?

Needless to say, that snake stayed covered up from then on.
This little story got my curiousity up Nathan. Just how did you detatch Bob's snake to run around the ship with it and how did you re-attach it?

[lily]

Cobra

You may have just given me an impossible task lily considering you just said you were pretty set in your ways, but I'll give it my best shot.

Maybe but how do you know we could get enough woman to work for us,
I'm not familur with Iraqi standards of enlistment, so I really can't honestly debate this issue.


against their culture and all, not to mention the Iraqis don't like us to much and that is an extremly dangerous job most woman would not wan't.
As I said and it has also been mentioned in the media. We do not understand their culture. Especially their treatment of women. I would think that there would be some women more than willing to join the military, just for this position. It would be much more preferable than having a man search her.


We also couldn't really trust them.
Not sure what you mean.......we can't trust Iraqi women, but we can trust Iraqi men, or we can't trust Iraqis in the military at all....if not, we're really screwed! We'll never get to stand down.

[lily]

Mayberry, what's the difference between what you propose and refusing to work with a Jew or a Muslim? Also, homophobe means hate or fear of homosexuals. There's a world of difference. I neither fear nor hate anyone, I just don't agree with their lifestyle, and don't want to be subjected to it. So calling me a homophobe is a misnomer. I think it's ridiculous we'd ban women though. O.K., if for some reason the draft might be re-instated, would you want YOUR daughter going to war? I don't. If you desire true equality, women would have to be included in the draft. The simple fact is, that a large majority of women aren't suitable for combat duty. Who determines who is suitable? That opens a whole new can of worms. Allowing big burly women to go to war is not a problem for me. Allowing a petite girl is.



If you open the draft up to women, then you can't possibly close it to homosexuals.

[Cobra]

we can't trust Iraqis in the military at all....if not, we're really screwed! We'll never get to stand down.
I'm just saying it may not be a good idea to trust Iraqis with searching other Iraqis for things like US military base’s and the green zone entrances. Those are jobs American should do just to protect their own safety. We don't know who has terrorist sympathies and who doesn't, just look at the Iraqi police and military they are rife with insurgents and corruption.

[lily]

Cobra............we've been training them for over 3 years now. They already have guns. The Green Zone is "suppose" to be a fortified area. But then we were talking about combat. I was more in line of thinking house to house searches.

We don't know who has terrorist sympathies and who doesn't, just look at the Iraqi police and military they are rife with insurgents and corruption.
Sorry.....but that is a problem that should never have been a problem to begin with..........we're never going to get out of there!

[Cobra]

we're never going to get out of there!
Oh yes we will, the American people aren't going to put up with this war forever.

I bet we start leaving right after Bush leaves office, and it will be about time. I've almost given up on the people we have in the Whitehouse now making a huge success out of the Iraq adventure.

[lily]

I bet we start leaving right after Bush leaves office,

Of course we will! He, himself said it would be the next president's decision..........another Bush mess that has to be cleaned up.

[Nathan Brazil]

The only thing you seem to be complaining about is sex,

People do see what they have on their minds all the time, don't they?

Naturally, what I said wasn't what you're saying I said.Â*Â*Since the words are on the board above, there's no need for me to do anything.


There aren't reports of orgies and rampant pregnancies there. Do you have hard evidence otherwise?

Ah, but there was the US destroyer that came into port with more people on it that had left.Â*Â*Now, those people weren't born yet, but they were there, and there was a whole bunch of Navy wives that were understandably pissed off about that.

Then, of course, you ignored completely what I said about why females were scuttled from the Navy's Nuclear Power Program.Â*Â*


But Nathan, you've denounced women voting,

With justification.

made insults to pregnant women,

No, just to pregnant whores who want to murder their babies.

and with this quote:

in addition to who knows what other kinds of sob-sister skating places the Army's grown since the Navy was raped in the Tail Hook scandal.

Seem to belittle rape and harrassment victims.

No, it belittled the split-tail sluts who wanted to play the sex games at the party then turned around and claimed harassment.Â*Â*Like I said, if they want to join a club, they should play by the rules, not change them.

No one asked them to join.

It seems as if you believe that we take such actions too seriously.

Clearly, some do.Â*Â*It's like you people never heard of Lucretia Borgia.

The chain of command is also part of the problem here, and that was one of the points of the article. Many don't do anything.

Hints for Successful Comprehension:

There's always the next guy up the chain.Â*Â*The Chain don't stop until it's under a Bush.Â*Â*At least he's not a rapist, right?

There's always the infamous "Mommy's Letter to the Congressman".

And...there's always the big possibility that the female involved is having vapors and heat flashes and nothing actually happened.Â*Â*

Considering this centers on women, it is entirely appropriate to want to know whether you are looking at this situation as it stands,

Of course I am.Â*Â*Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm wrong.Â*Â*Quite the opposite, of course.

Of the two of us, who has first hand experience with the military?

Of the two of us, who has first hand experience with females in the military?

Of the two of us, who is more likely to twist a given story out of shape so that it better reflects a liberal bias, or any bias at all?

Answers: Me. Me. You.

[Nathan Brazil]

we're never going to get out of there!
Oh yes we will, the American people aren't going to put up with this war forever.

I bet we start leaving right after Bush leaves office, and it will be about time. I've almost given up on the people we have in the Whitehouse now making a huge success out of the Iraq adventure.


True enough, if a surrender monkey gets elected in 2008, there's a high chance that he'll surrender and the terrorists will regain control of Iraq. The surrender monkeys will blame their failure on Bush, of course.

In the eyes of people that are awake, though, we knew it was going to take a long time to settle things down once we invaded. Cutting and running will only guarantee the outcome the surrender monkeys have been striving for since Bush was elected, namely, a US military defeat.

[Nathan Brazil]

If you open the draft up to women, then you can't possibly close it to homosexuals.

Who would want to? There'll always be a need for someone to sweep for land mines.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

That reminds me of the South Park movie when they were going to invade Canada.

"Operation Get Behind the Darkies"

Instead it would be... "Operation Farie Field Fire"

[Mayberry]

Let's recap. So far, we've had the opinions of a draft dodging advocate would not want my son or daughter to go to war, and I would do everything possible to get them out of it if they didn't want to go. Hell, I'd set them up in Canada (or wherever was suitable) if they wanted it and I could afford it. , and a child Cobra
(Junior Member)


Registration Date: 07-27-2006
Birthday: 12-14-1989 (16 years old)
Neither one of you has any idea what the military is all about. I've been there, served aboard USS Stout (DDG-55) Nathan's been there as a submariner. We've seen first hand the effects all of this has had on the military, and folks, a lot of it ain't good. Like was said earlier (sorry, can't see back that far in the reply section) in the military, morale and esprit de corps are essential to the efficient function of any unit. Say what you want, like it or not, women, gays, etc... are detrimental distractions on the battlefront. You guys want to have reasons why not, we've given them to you. YOU have not given us good reasons WHY.

[Mayberry]

Oh yes we will, the American people aren't going to put up with this war forever.

I bet we start leaving right after Bush leaves office, and it will be about time. I've almost given up on the people we have in the Whitehouse now making a huge success out of the Iraq adventure. If this is the case, then we've wasted the lives of our soldiers, and billions of our dollars. You're a child, you don't yet have an understanding of how things work, and why. You probably think it's "cool" to be a loud mouthed liberal because it's what you see on MTV. Maybe a few years in the military on the front lines would do you some good.

[Cobra]

If this is the case, then we've wasted the lives of our soldiers, and billions of our dollars.
When something is fucked up sometimes you just have to let it go, cut your losses, and hopefully learn a lesson from it. Losing more soldiers in an endless war Americans have little faith in is far more of a waste.

Violence in Iraq has not decreased in 3 bloody years of fighting and it doesn't look like it's going to stop anytime soon, more troops are being sent to Iraq not drawn down and the generals just warned Bush today about the threat of civil war in Iraq if that's not what it already is. The troops should be pulled out of Iraq before more American lives and money are wasted for a pipedream that may never be achieved. Americans will not stand for this war for the time it would take to achieve peace, just look at Israel how long have they been fighting, do you honestly think we should go down the same path in the ME. If Iraq is a soverign country give it to the Iraqis and let them deal with it, we've allready fullfilled our end of the bargain and it wasn't staying for years on end.

[Cobra]

Maybe a few years in the military on the front lines would do you some good.
Maybe but unfortunately will never be able to find out due to the sexist laws you support will we.

I’ve been considering military service after high school but I don't know how great it would be working for a sexist organization that would hold me back for possessing a vagina and has been repeatedly accused of ignoring abuse of its female soldiers. Considering the military is homophobic and also wouldn’t allow me to be who I am in the light of day I may need to spend some more time on this issue. But your going to have to work with jackass men and struggle anywhere for anything you really want I guess.

[lily]

Mayberry

and a child [quote]Cobra
(Junior Member)


Registration Date: 07-27-2006
Birthday: 12-14-1989 (16 years old)

I dare say, that "child" not only gave you a damned good answer in the post above, but she seems to be holding her own, with some of us "old geezers" that post here.......and also must much better than some....not mentioning any names!

[Mayberry]

war Americans have little faith in You keep saying that, where's your supporting evidence? Americans will not stand for this war for the time it would take to achieve peace There you go again. If Iraq is a soverign country give it to the Iraqis and let them deal with it They would be immediately invaded by Iran or Syria, in my opinion. In which case, we'd be right back over there again. I’ve been considering military service after high school but I don't know how great it would be working for a sexist organization that would hold me back for possessing a vagina That wouldn't be a problem. Being a left wing lesbian, now that would be a problem. Considering the military is homophobic and also wouldn’t allow me to be who I am in the light of day There's that word again. The military does not fear gays. They just don't want to have to deal with all their baggage. The military's got enough on their plate at the moment. But your going to have to work with jackass men and struggle anywhere for anything you really want I guess. Welcome to the real world. Oh, and all things being equal, there are some jackass women around too. I dare say, that "child" not only gave you a damned good answer Yes, she did, and I commend her. She is intelligent and articulate for someone her age, something sorely lacking in the young kids today. Hell, the fact that she is here and debating with us speaks volumes, most kids only seem to care about rotting their brains on hip hop. I do still think she has a lot to learn before she can make educated decisions about some of these topics. Keep plugging away though Cobra, you're on the right track, if on the wrong train (sorry, just had to take that shot).

[Rider]

I also would like to commend Cobra for her efforts to communicate with those who disagree with her ideas. It's not unusual for a younger person to be liberal in their thinking. It's quit normal. What we all (hopefully) are in search of is wisdom. Wisdom has three facets, intelligence, knowledge and experience. We are born with an innate amount of intelligence and that will never change. Schooling, both formal and informal can greatly increase our knowledge. But experience comes slowly, one day at a time.
This explains why colleges are such hotbeds of radicalism. An abundance of intelligence and knowledge, but minimal experience.
Hang in there, Kid!

[Cobra]

You keep saying that, where's your supporting evidence?
I know polls don't mean much to some people but have you seen bush's on Iraq. They aren't all fiction, many Americans are dissatisfied with the way this war is going and don't see why or feel we need to be there. When your improval ratings are in the low thirties-high twenties that says something.

[Cobra]

Being a left wing lesbian, now that would be a problem.
Doubt it, I'm quite capable of understanding what can and can not be said at certain times/in certain situations especially in self made ones. I don't get myself into things without knowing the basic facts.

[lily]

Being a left wing lesbian, now that would be a problem.
Doubt it, I'm quite capable of understanding what can and can not be said at certain times/in certain situations especially in self made ones. I don't get myself into things without knowing the basic facts.


You know, kiddo.........I don't want to turn this thread into a bitch fest, nor do I want to give you an even bigger head, than you must already have, for four compliments in a row..........but you just turned an immature slam on you and showed us, just who the grown up is!

Hats off to you!!