Australian Killers

[rubato]

People often confuse the output of science for science itself.

Science itself is the process of making concrete statements and subjecting them to tests. The output of science is the collection of facts, observations theories &c.

Its very important to keep the two straight.

yrs,
rubato

[loCAtek]

In the US, women have been in combat since at least the Civil War. They usually disguised themselves as men; and the number known as soldiers during the War between the States, is only counted by those who had to be treated by medics to confirm their sex. The may have been many more healthy females fighting on the front lines, than we know about.

In the Mexican Revolution, women were encouraged to fight along side the men and were known as 'Soldaderas'; my great-grandmother was briefly one.

[liberty]

You say that woman are being used successfully in combat by other countries.

Which countries are they? How many of the these female soldiers saw combat? How many won distinction? And how many have been killed? How well did they die? Did their deaths have any heavier impact on unit morale than if they had been male?

Let’s get something straight, I am not opposed to women warriors. What I am opposed to making assumptions and jumping on the band wagon. I am in favor of anything that wins wars. If women can contribute to defeating the enemy I am all for them.

When it comes to the military, I put more faith in conservatives than liberals; conservatives tend to be less ideology motivated and more results oriented. It was a liberal president that destroyed our stocks piles of napalm. Napalm can be a very useful weapon in the right terrain. It is foolish of us to deny our military a useful weapon.

[Scooter]

You have repeatedly been told about countries where women serve in the military. In one case you persisted in denying it to be true in spite of having the evidence repeatedly shoved under your nose, because you fell for a slanted article peddling outdated information. If you want to know more, do your own research, no one here is your encyclopedia service.

[Grim Reaper]

Which countries are they?

This has already been stated, you just ignored it.

Let’s get something straight, I am not opposed to women warriors.

Your posts in this thread speak otherwise.

It was a liberal president that destroyed our stocks piles of napalm.

We still use incendiary weapons that are almost identical to napalm, most recently in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[liberty]

[quote="Grim Reaper"][quote="liberty"]Your posts in this thread speak otherwise.

quote]

If I was opposed to woman in combat there would be no doubt about it: I would say it very clearly. What I am saying is the that any change in the military including women in combat needs to be tested very carefully. Nothing should be assumed to be true. In business if a mistake is made the company looses money, but in combat if a mistake is made people die. Mistakes are going to be made and people are going to die because of them, but we should try to avoid as many mistakes as possible.

[Scooter]

And it has already been demonstrated to work in at least 7 other countries. What sort of "test" would you propose that would be better than real world, in the field experience?

[loCAtek]

In area so critical ideology can not be allowed to interfere with the mission. Put the woman I combat and see how well they perform; nothing speaks louder than success.

Women are in combat;

American women are serving in the U.S. military today in ways and numbers unthinkable a few decades ago. They are now eligible to fill more than 80 percent of military jobs, 250,000 different assignments, often serving side-by-side with men.

So far, women have served some 167,000 tours of duty in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, more than four times the number in the first Gulf War. They are not assigned to infantry units, to tanks or submarines, and Pentagon policy officially precludes them from serving in so-called "combat occupations." But in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, where no clear frontlines exist, such distinctions are often hard to make.

Women in both theaters today drive Humvees and trucks, escort military convoys, serve as military police, even pilot helicopters and planes on the battlefield, all of it done under the very real -- and constant -- threat of attack. And like men, many women of the U.S. Armed Services have by now served several tours in the war zones.

...

JUDY WOODRUFF: And you were in dangerous situations.

CAROLYN SCHAPPER[Sergeant, Virginia Army National Guard]: Yes, I was.

JUDY WOODRUFF: How often?

CAROLYN SCHAPPER: Oh, every day is a dangerous situation. You never know what's going to happen. But I had seven significant events occur to me. That includes IEDs, sniper fire, and mortars, not to me personally, to my team.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And how did you -- do you think that you and other women you were alongside in Iraq deal with these things differently from the men?

CAROLYN SCHAPPER: Your training comes into play. I'd say you almost have a lack of emotion. You do what you need to do to get your people out and safe and back to the base or take care of the enemy. But, unfortunately, there's rarely an enemy to take care of.

And I would assume that's true for every individual, not necessarily a woman or a man, that your emotions are put aside and your training comes to the front.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Even when your comrades are hurt?

CAROLYN SCHAPPER: Yes, even more so, I would say so, because your first priority is to make sure they're safe.



PBS Newshour