Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Mandinka2
New member
Not at all sir , particlarly not in the first instance , well glad to see that at least one is not losing his head while all about him (Kipling)...SUST-MAN said:
I'm simply stating that I think that there are more than a few counterpoints her , the fact the young girl (although undoubtedly courageous) was part of an invading force , if you were an Iraqi tell me would you fight , what if you had lived in the country all your life and were fed lies (but could not see that those were lies) by an administration effectively put in and supprted by the CIA in 1984 (led by none other than Mr. Bush senior). Do you not feel that you are entitled to be a little pissed off? I am merely saying that I see nothing heroic about raiding a hospital...even in the course of war although it remains to be seen if it was indeed a hospital but if it was does it not say something for the humanity of those people? I'm sure that it was not Saddam who himself said "Take her to the hospital immediately". I see a tremendous hypocrasy between an American president who refused to allow American soldiers in Bosnia to be tried for alledged war crimes and yet wishes to extol the same measures of justice on others whilst at the same time continuing to hold people in Guantanamo bay. That is how I think. I hope I have given you food for thought. In any case now that so many have already been killed , I hope for a speedy and successful end to the war (that means you winning) with as little bloodshed as possible on both sides but I also think that the purposeful censoring of images of the victims of war is deeply insulting.
the nature boy
New member
Re: this story is BS
finally, a sane post from p0ink.
p0ink said:
finally, a sane post from p0ink.
Bikini Mod
New member
I don't know JACKSHIT about the politics of war or politics in general. BUT, I am capable of intelligent thought.
I hate war, NOT PEOPLE. Something that too many forget as they allow their minds to be clouded by propoganda.
My comments were echoing Mandinka's sentiments that NOT ALL IRAQIS ARE BAD.
It is that simple... I am not ANTI-ANYONE.
I am ANTI-IGNORANCE and ANTI-HATE. Funny how one always seems to follow the other though.
Whatever really happened, I should think that we will never know and that is something that is ridiculous to debate.
This young woman didn't ask for the circumstances dealt her, but how she chose to deal with them says an awful lot. I am not saying anything anti-male, only making a statement that is pro-female.
Too many men poo-poo the effectiveness and necessity of woman as being the "weaker sex" and yes, admittedly most of us definitely lack the sheer brute strength that most men posses and that is all good. However given the correct circumstances many females would be able to hold their own or at the very least put up a good fight.
Would I want MY DAUGHTERS in her place? NO. But, if that was the choice that any of them made I would support it proudly.
One's character is not determined by their life's circumstances, but rather by how THEY CHOOSE to react to them.
You can all continue now to hurl insults about "The French this" or "The Iraqis that" or "The Bush administration whatever" and "Blair is a freaking whosits". I could care less. Did any of you who are busy hating and hurling insults ever stop to think that instead of pouring your energy into something so negative as perpetuating hate that perhaps your energies could be so much more effectively spent if you might be able to somehow redirect them into something that *might* help?
....Just my pissant .02
I hate war, NOT PEOPLE. Something that too many forget as they allow their minds to be clouded by propoganda.
My comments were echoing Mandinka's sentiments that NOT ALL IRAQIS ARE BAD.
It is that simple... I am not ANTI-ANYONE.
I am ANTI-IGNORANCE and ANTI-HATE. Funny how one always seems to follow the other though.
Whatever really happened, I should think that we will never know and that is something that is ridiculous to debate.
This young woman didn't ask for the circumstances dealt her, but how she chose to deal with them says an awful lot. I am not saying anything anti-male, only making a statement that is pro-female.
Too many men poo-poo the effectiveness and necessity of woman as being the "weaker sex" and yes, admittedly most of us definitely lack the sheer brute strength that most men posses and that is all good. However given the correct circumstances many females would be able to hold their own or at the very least put up a good fight.
Would I want MY DAUGHTERS in her place? NO. But, if that was the choice that any of them made I would support it proudly.
One's character is not determined by their life's circumstances, but rather by how THEY CHOOSE to react to them.
You can all continue now to hurl insults about "The French this" or "The Iraqis that" or "The Bush administration whatever" and "Blair is a freaking whosits". I could care less. Did any of you who are busy hating and hurling insults ever stop to think that instead of pouring your energy into something so negative as perpetuating hate that perhaps your energies could be so much more effectively spent if you might be able to somehow redirect them into something that *might* help?
....Just my pissant .02
Bikini Mod
New member
It's got a lot to do with it as a few people asked me to explain my comment "I hear ya" to Mandinka early on in the thread... and it was not directed at any ONE person darlin'.
If you are not one the ones that was hurling and insult then you have no need to even go NEAR the shoe, let alone try it on.
If you are not one the ones that was hurling and insult then you have no need to even go NEAR the shoe, let alone try it on.
p0ink
New member
The Other Side of the Story ... The Other Side of the Story National Review | April 4, 2003 | David Frum
That is what Paul Harvey calls it on his famous radio show, but it is what we are not getting in the case of Pfc. Jessica Lynch. Ramesh Ponnuru sketched the story out yesterday in NRO, but there is still more to be said – and much to be thought about.
By all accounts, Jessica Lynch showed amazing courage and cool in a moment of terrible danger – and incredible endurance under torture. She has earned and more than earned the honors and decorations that the armed forces will now bestow on her.
But there is a real possibility that her example will now be used as the clinching argument for the removal of the final restrictions on the role of women in combat – and that in order to honor her, Congress and the military leadership may forget why those restrictions exist and indeed why we should be moving toward more restrictions rather than fewer.
Pfc. Lynch was not actually a combat soldier. She worked in a supply unit. Her experience exposes the increasing unreality of the army's ever-shrinking definition of "combat." Any troops near the front line of a battle can become combat troops at any moment if the front line shifts, whether they are assigned responsibility for urban assault or managing munitions inventories.
But the military's determination to treat male and female soldiers more “equally” in practice expose them to very unequal degrees of danger. The enemies America now confronts seem to make a habit of treating female captives with special cruelty. They did it during the first Gulf War and there is reason to think they are doing it again now.
And it is disturbing, at least to me, that nobody much seems to think that this systematic abuse of American women in uniform is worth any special attention or outrage. As Ramesh points out, a strange official silence has descended on the whole subject of the sexual maltreatment of women prisoners of war.
And what makes this all the stranger is that we are becoming inured to the idea of women soldiers at exactly the moment that 9/11 taught us why the campaign for affirmative action for women firefighters was such a mistake. We can now see that it matters that the vast majority of female applicants for fire-fighting jobs can't lift the hoses and can't carry an injured person down a flight of stairs. Why can't we see that it matters that the vast majority of female soldiers can't throw a grenade the required distance or run as fast as the male soldiers in their units or carry a full pack?
Myself, I find the practical objections to women in combat less powerful than the moral objections. Stunningly, the moral objections no longer much move the American people, who now seem ready to shrug off the rape and sexual torture of young women as an ordinary part of the fortunes of war. But surely these considerations of efficiency ought to carry some pragmatic weight? If the Iraq campaign is teaching us anything, it's that in the 21st century, sheer human strength and endurance still matter in the grunt work of war. Why would the armed forces willingly handicap themselves on those valences in pursuit of an ideal of equality that is no ideal at all?
That is what Paul Harvey calls it on his famous radio show, but it is what we are not getting in the case of Pfc. Jessica Lynch. Ramesh Ponnuru sketched the story out yesterday in NRO, but there is still more to be said – and much to be thought about.
By all accounts, Jessica Lynch showed amazing courage and cool in a moment of terrible danger – and incredible endurance under torture. She has earned and more than earned the honors and decorations that the armed forces will now bestow on her.
But there is a real possibility that her example will now be used as the clinching argument for the removal of the final restrictions on the role of women in combat – and that in order to honor her, Congress and the military leadership may forget why those restrictions exist and indeed why we should be moving toward more restrictions rather than fewer.
Pfc. Lynch was not actually a combat soldier. She worked in a supply unit. Her experience exposes the increasing unreality of the army's ever-shrinking definition of "combat." Any troops near the front line of a battle can become combat troops at any moment if the front line shifts, whether they are assigned responsibility for urban assault or managing munitions inventories.
But the military's determination to treat male and female soldiers more “equally” in practice expose them to very unequal degrees of danger. The enemies America now confronts seem to make a habit of treating female captives with special cruelty. They did it during the first Gulf War and there is reason to think they are doing it again now.
And it is disturbing, at least to me, that nobody much seems to think that this systematic abuse of American women in uniform is worth any special attention or outrage. As Ramesh points out, a strange official silence has descended on the whole subject of the sexual maltreatment of women prisoners of war.
And what makes this all the stranger is that we are becoming inured to the idea of women soldiers at exactly the moment that 9/11 taught us why the campaign for affirmative action for women firefighters was such a mistake. We can now see that it matters that the vast majority of female applicants for fire-fighting jobs can't lift the hoses and can't carry an injured person down a flight of stairs. Why can't we see that it matters that the vast majority of female soldiers can't throw a grenade the required distance or run as fast as the male soldiers in their units or carry a full pack?
Myself, I find the practical objections to women in combat less powerful than the moral objections. Stunningly, the moral objections no longer much move the American people, who now seem ready to shrug off the rape and sexual torture of young women as an ordinary part of the fortunes of war. But surely these considerations of efficiency ought to carry some pragmatic weight? If the Iraq campaign is teaching us anything, it's that in the 21st century, sheer human strength and endurance still matter in the grunt work of war. Why would the armed forces willingly handicap themselves on those valences in pursuit of an ideal of equality that is no ideal at all?
Similar threads
