← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Franco
Thread ID: 17867 | Posts: 11 | Started: 2005-04-20
2005-04-20 05:31 | User Profile
4-19-05
[B]Women in the Military[/B]
We just read in our local newspaper that a female U.S. soldier was killed by a roadside bomb in the Iraq War.
That news article caused us to ponder a couple of questions:
[I]1. Why are women in the American military?
We say that women-in-the-military is a bad idea, for several reasons:
Bobby SoldierBoy needs to keep his mind on his job, not on Susie SoldierGal sitting a few feet away. Female soldiers are a distraction to male soldiers.
Allowing women into the military blurs the natural differences between men and women - which is why feminists love the idea of women-in-the-military. Such an idea advances feminism, a Jewish-led political movement [1].
Women should be at home raising children [like they did for thousands of years], not wearing camouflage and struggling to pull back the charging handle of an M-16 rifle half-way around the world [2].
Women-in-the-military is just another sign that Western culture is becoming a joke.
[1] [url]http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/lettersOct-Nov03/102903wsijews-feminism.htm[/url]
[2] many women soldiers have difficulty pulling back the charging [i.e. cocking] handle of an M-16 rifle, due to the fact that women have weaker hand and arm muscles than men
2005-04-20 06:18 | User Profile
The US wouldn't need to have women as well as men in the military if US leaders didn't insist on getting the US involved in conflicts that have nothing to do with the defense of this country. If the US ever faced an invasion or similar serious threat, then there's not a man in the nation who wouldn't fight. But what's the point of joining up now and risking your life for the agenda of wealthy, snot-nosed politicians and their Jewish masters?
2005-04-20 07:47 | User Profile
=== If the US ever faced an invasion or similar serious threat, then there's not a man in the nation who wouldn't fight.
I find this hard to believe when all you'd have to do is package the invasion as "rights" or drape it in cheesecake suitable for swallowing.
45 million unborn children slaughtered at the hands of for-profit abortionists and their fellow predators among Useful Idiot feminazis and the GOP architects of our Culture of Death ... you see any men fighting?
I sure as hell don't.
I know of only one man -- a guy named Loce in New Jersey -- who actually had the balls to try and fight for his own child, even.
Quit blowing smoke up your own ass.
2005-04-20 13:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=askel5]=== If the US ever faced an invasion or similar serious threat, then there's not a man in the nation who wouldn't fight.
I find this hard to believe when all you'd have to do is package the invasion as "rights" or drape it in cheesecake suitable for swallowing.
45 million unborn children slaughtered at the hands of for-profit abortionists and their fellow predators among Useful Idiot feminazis and the GOP architects of our Culture of Death ... you see any men fighting?
I sure as hell don't.
I know of only one man -- a guy named Loce in New Jersey -- who actually had the balls to try and fight for his own child, even. Abortion is a totally different issue. Right or wrong, most people care about their own lives and the lives of their (already-born) relatives a hell of a lot more than they care about the unborn. There is the occasional Eric Robert Rudolph, but such people are obviously rare.
If there were an invasion -- farfetched as that scenario is -- I suspect that even the most selfish of people would realize that there would be too much at stake not to defend the nation. But maybe I'm wrong.
Quit blowing smoke up your own ass.[/QUOTE] You know, it IS possible to disagree with someone without being a pr!ck about it. Try it.
2005-04-20 17:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]The US wouldn't need to have women as well as men in the military if US leaders didn't insist on getting the US involved in conflicts that have nothing to do with the defense of this country. [B][I]If the US ever faced an invasion or similar serious threat, then there's not a man in the nation who wouldn't fight[/I].[/B] But what's the point of joining up now and risking your life for the agenda of wealthy, snot-nosed politicians and their Jewish masters?[/QUOTE][COLOR=Red]Absolute crap[/COLOR].
The same people who ducked Vietnam would not be fighting. Bill Clinton would jump into the ditch for Israel, but not the United States. Jews would be urging others to display the courage they lacked. Libertarians would be looking for those to bribe or hire.
Many of the posters on this board would retire to their keyboards and computer screens. Bullets are much more dangerous than paint ball.
2005-04-20 17:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=edward gibbon][color=Red]Absolute crap[/color].
The same people who ducked Vietnam would not be fighting. Bill Clinton would jump into the ditch for Israel, but not the United States. Jews would be urging others to display the courage they lacked. Libertarians would be looking for those to bribe or hire.
Many of the posters on this board would retire to their keyboards and computer screens. Bullets are much more dangerous than paint ball.[/QUOTE] You have a point that there would certainly be cowards who would refuse to fight. However, I think Angler is correct that there is a qualitative difference between killing gooks half-way around the world because the plutocracy thinks it is a good idea, and defending your home and family from an invading force. There would be far fewer men who would refuse to fight in the latter case.
2005-04-20 18:20 | User Profile
In WWII the German soldier were more afraid of the Russina female soldiers than of the male ones.
In Cuba we had females fighting alongside the male one and there was maybe 5% of a problem.
Fidels right hand "man" was a woman.
In Vietnam there were almost as many females (in some sectors) as males fighting for Charlie.
The main problem with American womens is that they are to "delicate" for the same reason that most american are to "sanitize" and get sick by eating food and drinking water when ever they are overseas.
The best snipers in the Israeli army are females.
As far as I am concern only certain types of American woman would qualify to serve in combat with Bush's daugther not being one of those.
2005-04-20 18:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]You have a point that there would certainly be cowards who would refuse to fight. However, I think Angler is correct that there is a qualitative difference between killing gooks half-way around the world because the plutocracy thinks it is a good idea, and defending your home and family from an invading force. There would be far fewer men who would refuse to fight in the latter case.[/QUOTE] Exactly.
I was basically exaggerating when I said that everyone would fight. But when you're under attack, it's actually NOT cowardly not to fight -- it's just stupid. If the choice is between (1) fighting and maybe taking a bullet, and (2) refusing to fight and almost certainly taking a bullet (or being made into a slave), then who is going to pick choice (2)?
[quote=edward gibbon]Many of the posters on this board would retire to their keyboards and computer screens. Bullets are much more dangerous than paint ball. Perhaps you should tell that to military personnel who train with Simunitions or laser-tag devices and blanks. Let them know that they're wasting their time.
In any event, you know nothing about anyone on this board except yourself. Kindly get off of your high horse.
2005-04-21 17:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]In WWII the German soldier were more afraid of the Russina female soldiers than of the male ones.[/QUOTE]I find this impossible to believe. [QUOTE]In Vietnam there were almost as many females (in some sectors) as males fighting for Charlie.[/QUOTE]I never saw anything remotely resembling that ratio.
2005-04-21 17:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Exactly.
I was basically exaggerating when I said that everyone would fight. But when you're under attack, it's actually NOT cowardly not to fight -- it's just stupid. If the choice is between (1) fighting and maybe taking a bullet, and (2) refusing to fight and almost certainly taking a bullet (or being made into a slave), then who is going to pick choice (2)?
Perhaps you should tell that to military personnel who train with Simunitions or laser-tag devices and blanks. Let them know that they're wasting their time.
[I][B]In any event, you know nothing about anyone on this board except yourself. Kindly get off of your high horse[/B][/I].[/QUOTE]I have been accused by many of not knowing them. Of course this is true. But images are formed after reading many posts. Those who prate about doctrinal purity almost certainly will find reasons not to expose themselves to danger. If this description applies, so be it. Many will submit in the belief their surrender will ensure their survival. This did occur with many Jewish leaders in Hitler's Europe. They sacrificed their flock for their lives. We are not different.
2005-04-22 06:22 | User Profile
I don't think about it enough to truly know how I honestly feel about women being in the military, but I do have to take issues with these two reasons:
[QUOTE]1. Bobby SoldierBoy needs to keep his mind on his job, not on Susie SoldierGal sitting a few feet away. Female soldiers are a distraction to male soldiers.[/QUOTE]while there is obviously some truth in this the male soldier and his inability to control his sexual impulses is to blame for this. If the man is in the military and especially if he finds himself in a combat situation and he can't get his mind, out of his pants, so to speak, and he gets killed,etc that is his fault. If you want to talk about such things as weakness, what would you call that?
[QUOTE]2. Allowing women into the military blurs the natural differences between men and women - which is why feminists love the idea of women-in-the-military. Such an idea advances feminism, a Jewish-led political movement [1].[/QUOTE]I would never deny that there are differences between men and women, but with these differences comes exceptions and I would assume that a woman who is in the military and has successfully gone through basic training is probably not going to be some little weak girly girl type.
[QUOTE] The US wouldn't need to have women as well as men in the military if US leaders didn't insist on getting the US involved in conflicts that have nothing to do with the defense of this country. If the US ever faced an invasion or similar serious threat, then there's not a man in the nation who wouldn't fight. But what's the point of joining up now and risking your life for the agenda of wealthy, snot-nosed politicians and their Jewish masters? [/QUOTE]I agree with this completely with the possible exception of Jews being the masters of the wealthy snot nosed politicians, just in that I see the Jews and these politicians as more of a equal and mutually beneficial partnership.