Comments on: Updated: British Cry Babies Cash In On Cowardice

By: james huggins

james huggins — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 06:32:44 +0000

The ability to kill someone is not automatic qualification for combat. I am a fat old man and certainly able to kill somebody. That doesn’t make me an airborne ranger. Women do not belong in combat. The long term physical stress is too much. I would hate for my son to share a foxhole with a woman. I can see him with part of his leg shot off and having to hump miles through jungle or desert or across a glacier to an LZ with only a 120 lb woman to help him, while she carries both their weapons, the extra ammo and the radio. Being a card carrying member of NOW means squat in those conditions. Women in combat means women killed and maimed and more men than necessary being killed and maimed. When the mommas of little babies start coming home in body bags or with their arms and legs blown off or their faces burned off people will find out the true horror of combat and the difference between mothers and fathers in combat. [Where have you been? In Hannity’s America? This is happening NOW. I’ve watched many a program, admittedly not on Fox, about armless, legless women back from Iraq. It’s sick.–ILANA]

I understand why the armed services want so many women. Political correct pressure and having to provide a military when such a large number of males are sissies or semi literate, dope dealing thugs. Having so many women in the military is bad enough but pretending they are front line troop material is being blind to reality.

By: Robert Glisson

Robert Glisson — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 04:20:15 +0000

If I read the book will this arguement go away? I love to read and probably have read something similar, but if it helps. Now, I'll refill my glass of King David Almog and say again, I am not argueing about the government's women in combat policy. But about commentators whining about mothers in combat. (Maggie) and Mr. Mullins and Bailey stating that "The government put mommys in harms way" My understanding is that the British military accepts those who sign up. She joined and said she would do the job, now they (Mullins and Bailey)say the government should have denied her enlistment. How very noble, just like our government saying "You can't do that, you might get hurt" I thought libertarians wanted to get rid of nanny government. Foolish me. Bailey goes on to say, "No matter how witchy the women get, REAL men stand their ground and maintain the position that women should not be in the battlefield unless ALL is lost." Maybe, as Alex said, " Robert represents a view shared by a lot of those in the military and civilian world." So, maybe only the ones with a more lofty view know that mommies can't fight and military and civilians are too dumb to understand it. Or maybe we aren't real men, I guess. However I have been a carded Libertarian for more years than I can count and when we started we had the slogan, "Free Markets and Individual freedom." I still believe in that and I believe that if a woman wants to do something, even combat, she has the right to try (an fail) as much as any man because it is "Her choice." At this time, I will still consider the female gender my equal even if I can't be a "real" man. [You are confused about libertarianism; there is no natural right to be a fireman or policeman; those are positive/bogus rights, orÂ feminism. In libertarian theory, governmet is to secure life, liberty, property. Not barbie's dreams. What you present is not libertarain theory.--ILANA] http://www.ilanamercer.com/MackinnonsTextualHarassment.htm http://www.vdare.com/misc/mercer_050106_silly.htm

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 04:19:12 +0000

It is telling that the Brit war soldiers allowed themselves to be filmed playing ping-pong and accepted the Iranian’s souvenir gift bags upon release, all smiles an apologies…

Exactly what is the Brit’s POW code for resisting complicity with enemy?

Does it require refusing a BOOK DEAL post-release?

Now, that surely qualifies as torture!

By: Robert Glisson

Robert Glisson — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 20:21:18 +0000

I can understand why we libertarians have so many problems being understood. We never can seem to stay focused on a point. My response to those previous to me who were degrading our country and England because a female, who was also a mother, joined the combat wing of the British navy and got assigned as any other British Naval service person to an assignment that contained risk. I then stated that just because she was a mother that did not mean that she could not fight. I then listed my reasons why I felt justified in making my statements. I did not venture my own opinion of government policy in regard to women in combat and I have difficulty understanding why my comments would cause anyone to think I was espousing government policy. Now if someone had presented a good counterpoint showing why a mommy that left her child in someone else's keeping to volunteer to go to war was the fault of the government--we would have a good subject for debate. But then we would have to debate why when I was a probation/parole office and had to go through the door, I was glad to have that female backing me up rather than that real male. Come to think of it, I never had much concern with female police officers doing their jobs either. But in honesty, I would not really want Ann Coulter behind me with any dangerous weapon. Someday, if the subject of "women in combat" comes up in this blog as a debatable subject, let me know. I've got lots of points for both sides and would not mind arguing one side for a while and then switching. That would be fun. [Perhaps you ought to read my friend Stephanie Gutmann's book first: The Kinder, gentler Military: How Political Correctness Affects Our Ability to Win Wars --ILANA]

By: Bailey

Bailey — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:59:34 +0000

The issue of women in the field of battle won’t go away and that means it is prima facie evidence that our culture is collapsing.

If you have to send the ladies to do a man’s job in war, then you can be sure that your civilization is already on downward spiral.

A woman can defend herself to a certain extent yet, and so can an amoeba. But this is not the issue. The issue is high moral character and how it preserves a civilization.

If you cannot figure out why it is wrong to put mothers in the military then you have probably already been profoundly corrupted by the devolution going on in your once formerly civilized culture.

Anyone who doesn’t “get it” about the biologically superior muscularity of men over women is truly without understanding and an unwitting partner in the further collapse of civilized culture.

No matter how witchy the women get, REAL men stand their ground and maintain the position that women should not be in the battlefield unless ALL is lost.

I realize that it takes bravery to maintain this position, and that is another reason why Ahmadinejad scored a point against the West.

By: Alex

Alex — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 15:50:32 +0000

Are you talking about this one?

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=46

A quick google popped that one up.

I’ve been curious before about why more men don’t join the military, and I’ve guessed it’s because our culture doesn’t encourage it. I think that’s the only thing I can come up with right now. Thinking and talking about the Spartans made me curious about how we could be so different from them in our ability to produce men like that. Some of the differences are good ones, but it seems as though if you want to have fighting men like this, you want to encourage men to take this role.

The modern military seems to want guys like me (I guess, they seem to want just about anyone right now) but it’s not encouraged in probably the way it needs to be. And they are not allowed to say exactly who they want because of political correctness (assuming they even want men anymore.)

Imagine trying to find a network admin specialist, but only being allowed to say you wanted people who could type.

I don’t think the military is doing a good job of callling out to them. I can’t blame them, though; it’s a really political situation out there with regards to women in the military and feminists.

Or I guess. I need to read more articles and think on this more before making any concrete statements. These are gut reactions.

By: Mike Gooding

Mike Gooding — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 12:22:20 +0000

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the reasons that the Royal Navy personnel and Royal Marines did not fight back against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard were two-fold:
1. They were lightly armed with SA-80 assault rifles and pistols, whereas the IRGC were armed with anti-aircraft guns, RPGs, heavy cannon and machine guns. To fight was to die, as at the time of the capture the troops were disembarking down ladders.
2. To fire shots at IRGC troops would have started a war with Iran. Seeing as Iraq is hard enough, I think we can do without that, don’t you? Especially when you consider that the Iranian military is actually, you know, TRAINED and WELL ARMED, not to mention increasingly isolated, and probably attempting to make a nuke.

Since coming back to the UK, it has been made clear that our troops were not threatened with ‘revocation of dessert priveliges’, as you so eloquently point out, but with being tried for espionage. For which the penalty is… yep, you guessed it… execution. Now, when faced with a gun in your face, and a man saying ‘read this and you can go home, or don’t, and we’ll shoot you’, I think any sane person would have read what they were told. If you’d actually seen what they said, you’d have noticed that they only ever said ‘apparently’, or ‘the Iranians say’, or ‘they percieved’, when referring to their position as inside Iranian waters.

Please refrain from calling your only staunch ally in your stupid war cowards, as what the Royal Marines and Royal Naval personnel did was entirely understandable, and this sort of name-calling only makes British people hate your country’s percieved arrogant and gung-ho attitude.

I understand if you don’t publish this, although I’d obviously be happy if you did recognise how offensive some of your comments, and the comments of that military bloke, are to Britons. Remember, we’re supposed to be friends!

Mike Gooding
Exeter, Devon, United Kingdom.

By: Alex

Alex — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 06:11:52 +0000

Robert represents a view shared by a lot of those in the military and civilian world. It's probably better to let the women in battle/military debate go away; it isn't going anywhere. It might be better to figure out how including women in future combat (you know it's coming) won't hurt the military and its ability to fight. It might also be a bit of a time for a rethinking of gender in the States; it is a bit wierd to open doors for women and then realize you might have to kill them if you're in today's military. So the changing begins...

[We haven't stopped thinking/talking about gender in the US; women are the sex that never shuts up. Whatever the feminists say goes. Ann Coulter wrote a good piece about how bad women are as cops and how many unnecessary people they kill b/c they are more afraid. Maybe someone can post a link to that old column. As to female fire fighter...ILANA]

By: Robert Glisson

Robert Glisson — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 03:12:59 +0000

I think Mr. Jacobs stated everything very well and would find no fault with his statements; however, I am not to sure about the above comments. A: What does the fact that one of the British servicemen (persons) was a mother have to do with anything? She joined a military service as a combatant, not a civilian worker. The rules are the same for everyone. B: A lot of men in the service are "fathers" shouldn't they be exempt from combat as well? What about the expectant fathers or hope to be fathers. As John Stossel would say, "Give me a break." Motherhood and fatherhood have nothing to do with combat. C: In our present culture women are taught that they are poor little weak things that have to be protected by big strong men. Bull; my little (4'11") 66 year old wife, acts like butter would not melt in her mouth, but give her the incenitive and I will not be responsible for the outcome. Look to the animal kingdom and see who does most of the killing, it ain't the gaudy male. Female lions for example, bear the kids and then leave them home with daddy to watch them while they go out to bring in the bacon. I would bet that if you took this thin layer of civilization off, the real woman would be exposed and you would not mess with her. Like, how many women bombers has Israel and Iraq seen? [Israel does not allow women in combat; I believe women have no place in the army or police, except in auxiliary positions. However, like yourself, I have argued that women can be just as vicious, only in different ways. See "Houston Mom: Medea or Madonna?" You don't need vicious, physically less able, manipulative, sexual beings in the army.] As a retired probation officer, I have seen what happens when the lady loses it. Bloody does not describe it. D: Look to history and see what women did and do in other cultures than ours. Many women have held up under fire or captivity much worse than what this bunch (male and female)had and proven their worth. E: This story is about British military personnel, not U.S. military, so why are commentators lumping Brits and USA military leaders together? US soldiers have been in action repeatedly over the last ten or so years, none have come home in disgrace and none of our military commanders have been known for not doing the best job they can for their troops. I realize that a lot of the readers of this blog have a problem with President Bush and that is fine, but don't call U.S. troops wimps just because the British show an inability to be effective. [Good point.]

By: EN

EN — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 01:05:11 +0000

The actions of the soldiers are what you get with elective wars. A war of national survival brings out the best in people which is why the Iraq insurgents will win.