 |
   |
|
|
December 24th, 2003
|
|
|
 But I think this discussion is heading in the wrong direction now. I don't think most of us are against women in the military because of you (women), but it's because of our nature.. It's based on facts from the Israeli army, where they concluded that the men stopped to fight when a women got injured or killed. As I have said before, this is a very hard question to answer, and I'm still not sure what my answer is. I have worked with several women (both in Norway and abroad) who was just as good, or better leaders than most of them men I have worked with.. Don't take this discussion personally SilverPhoenix... It's not you that's weak, it's us..... 
|
|
December 24th, 2003
|
|
|
I know Redneck, and I can get a little personal about these things..
And I know you guys better then you think, and I NEVER ever think that you woul out me down in any way. You guys are to good to do that and you are men that have really good points in the discussions. And I agree with you, seriously, I do.. But, we still are not in the past anymore.. We live in the soon to be 2004.. And the funny thing is.. Sweden have advnced forward in this matter.. Therefor we have the best military trianing forwomen.. We have even special training for women.. But, not to be cruel, but US isn't making any progress.. How come Swedish Militray men can work with a woman in battle, and not the US ones?
|
|
December 25th, 2003
|
|
|
My point is that we (the U.S.) does not need to make "progress" in this area, I truly believe that females do not belong in the field. I DO however think that females have a place in the military, and that they are an incredible asset.
|
 --
|
|
|
|
|
December 25th, 2003
|
|
|
|
Yeah, That's too bad, because Us is what I want to work with..
But if I can't do progress? What is the meaning then? I don't wanna be some.. "thing".. A "asset".. I will probalby be stuck with Sweden as the only training course.. Though.. IF US and Sweden would get into a.. war?.. Wich will problaby not happen at all.. But IF.. Then I will make no attempt stoppping US.. 
|
|
December 25th, 2003
|
|
|
|
Well that's always a good thing I guess
 .An "asset" is not a derogatory term, I'm an asset in the U.S. Army (non-deployable right now, but still...), and Redleg is an asset in the Norwegian Army. |
|
December 25th, 2003
|
|
|
|
Yeah yeah.. :P Dont brag, Cowboy..
Anyways.. Depends on what happens though.. The first country I would help would be US in ANY matter..  Next would be Sweden..  And , Err, Last would be.. ... ... Russia?.. Naw, Don't think so..
|
|
December 25th, 2003
|
|
|
|
Haha, well I have to say it's like I've said before, you can only be loyal to one, "No man can serve two masters..." (Mt. 6:24).
|
|
December 25th, 2003
|
|
|
|
Yeah, and the one who is my master is US..
They can use me forever what purpose that would be good for their country.. US is where my loyality is.. |
|
December 25th, 2003
|
|
|
|
I understand your concerns SilverPhoenix and I would agree to women in the field if all of them came across as gung ho as you. But if they did that I would say the only sfe conditions to have women in the field would be to have them put in their own separate battalion or whatever and fight missions very separate from the men so they wouldn't be around each other. But that I'm 100% sure will never happen. But if it did I would be behind it then. All I can say for the now is that Patton would never have women in the field in his army and I think he'd roll in his grave if they did. I trust Patton's judgment before any others.
|
|
December 25th, 2003
|
|
|
|
I know what you mean Diplomatic_Means.. But I would have a headache just looking at those women..
|
 |
