Reply
Wed 19 Nov, 2003 10:56 am
WOULD BUSH WANT HIS GIRLS IN COMBAT?
U S News and World Report
It's a question every parent with a daughter in military service, or considering it, has mulled since Pfc. Jessica Lynch, bloodied and possibly raped, was rescued: What the heck were she and other female soldiers doing in the line of fire? The answer is simple, though little publicized: Rules changed in the Clinton years to get women closer to the front. Some Pentagon officials would like to see new limits on female combat roles.
But it's all up to President Bush:
http://www.you-click.net/GoNow/a15504a90385a170716372a2
Step-daughter has been on military leave from Iraq for two weeks. Returns on Friday. This morning her father said to me that he wishes there was someplace he could hide her.
eoe
eoe, may the love of her family and vigilence of her unit protect her when she is in harms way.
BBB
I think that women should be permitted to serve in whatever way they are capable. Would what had happened to Jessica Lynch be any less tragic had the soldier been named Joe Lynch?
I think war is horrible from the getgo. As far as I am concerned, I would much rather have problems settled diplomatically. But I am not living in a dream world, and I know that sometimes soldiers' lives are put at risk.
Unlike Vietnam, which some people consider as similar to Iraq, we now have volunteer armed forces. The main job of an armed service person is to be a warrior. Being a warrior comes with the possibility of being maimed or killed.
I think that any young person who does not want to take the risk, should not join the armed forces. No one is now being forced, like during Vietnam.
Bush didn't want himself in combat, so why would he want his girls there?
It's difficult to fight for something when you don't believe in it. The conflict that so many of our dedicated soldiers are feeling about this thing is the hardest part of all for them.
Bush, although he would never admit it, probably secretly would support having them out of his hair.
eoe- I can appreciate their feelings. I am sure that it must be awful to be in the service, and fighting in a war that one does not believe in, or even is against.
That is why when one joins the service, a person must realize that he is duty bound to follow the orders of his superiors, whether he approves or not. That is why a young person must consider ALL the contingencies, BEFORE he/she signs on the dotted line.
There is an easy way to get Bush's daughters into the service. As even someone like Bi Polar knows, the services take only volunteers now.
I have sent an E-Mail to the Dean campaign urging him to take the load off of the poor oppressed lower classes( they are the ones who usually volunteer) and put into his platform the re-establishment of the draft.
That proposal along with Dean's goofy idea of abolishing the entire tax cut will make it certain that when he will go down in flames big time on Nov. 2, 2004.
And what kind of person am I, massagato? Be specific please. Say what you mean in plain English, and back up your statement with empirical evidence. Thanks.
Dean may indeed go down in flames Nov. 2 2004.
Then again maybe not.
Have any of the Bush boys or their offspring seen service. I don't know but I doubt it. I guess it is always easier when it's someone elses child. Male or female.
Quote: Would Bush want his girls in combat?
You mean other than the videos circulating on the net of them "combatting" Ashton Kutcher?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace