Women in uniform

[Harrison]

*waits for powerpuff girls response about how some random woman who is closer to being a man than many of us here is better at X than anyone they know*

[Darcler]

I am more of a man and better at slinging my BIG penis around than ANY of you assholes!!!!


lol at the new forum description btw

[Harrison]

That fucking owns.

[The Kizzy]

Women aren't nearly as physically capable nor as emotionally prepared to handle war.

Yet in every example given, the man would not be able to do his job because of the fear of death of the woman. Who isn't emotionally capable?

[xaoshaen]

I had SCUDS fired near me when I was on the USS Missouri. Later, I was in an EA-6B that had Iraqi Fighters nearby which attempted to engage us. I was with an early group that went up the Iraqi highway of death from Kuwait and was fired at multiple times. Funny, I saw Army, Marines and Navy there but no Air Force at all. I guess someone forgot to tell the Iraqis I was Navy and not to fire at me.

Right, 'cause the Air Force owuld never send its personnel into a situation like that. It's not like they would ask their TACP and combat control teams to be on the ground, or have security forces present. They certaintly would never have an aircraft engaged by hostile forces! They're too busy gathering everyone in San Antonio and Colorado!

Find out how many Sailors were lost at sea doing night time flight ops in inclimate weather or doing other dangerous work. Ask Kahar how safe Submaries are, or better yet just go watch The Hunt for Red October.

Go for it. Find out how many sailors gave their lives for their country. Compare it to the number of Marines and Soldiers who have done the same. If we're using Hollywood as justification, just go watch Blackhawk Down and check out the story behind it.

My point is simply being on a ship near North Korea is vastly more dangerous than the jobs most AF Enlisted have.

You mean like the Air Force enlisted personnel performing security duties in the DMZ? Those Air Force enlisted personnel?

Most Naval personnel spend time at sea. Being at sea is dangerous. It is much more dangerous than what the Air Force deals with. You may consider sitting off the coast of Iran in a body of water that isnt much deeper than a bathtub safe, but most would disagree. Likewise most would consider Naval operations near any anti US country unsafe, and there are many. That is combat, whether you will admit it or not.

No, it's not combat. It's no more combat than the Air Force personnel on the ground in Iraq performing c4 duties so that strike crews can hit their target. It makes for shitty working conditions, but it doesn't begin to compare to having hostile forces actually firing on you.

Somewhere in your mind you can't equate being near dangerous countries flying the flag of the US as operational, and want to compare deskjobs in England with living conditions and hazards on Naval Ships of War.

I don't recall comparing desk jobs in England, to, well, anything. Does the Air Force have the best perks and living conditions of any of the services? Absolutely! Does the Navy live the warrior life confronting the enemy at great personal risk at every turn? Not hardly.

Ships are VULNERABLE. It a projection of power and and independent bastion of the U.S.. Sailors are in DANGERS way. Ask these guys how safe ships can be, even when they are operating in international waters

Likewise, I'm sure the guys who died on the U.S.S Stark and U.S.S Cole were glad they were on completely safe Naval ships

Yeah, because we've never had our shoreside installations bombed. Terrorist actions are clearly restricted to the U.S. Navy... The Air Force would never, ever consider sending reconaissance, combat, and support vehicles into hostile airspace.

[Lyion]

Like I said, Army and Marines are primarily in harms way during war. Navy is in harms way moreso during peace time. Air Force is in Mcdonalds drive through pretty much through both endeavors.

I'm sure there is no difference living in a hotel and fuelling planes, versus being on an Aircraft Carrier or Submarine. Anyone looking at that can clearly see there is equal danger!

Air Force Enlisted have it made. They have it a little less made due to the Iraqi war, but they still have vastly less danger and vastly easier lifestyles.

And yes, being at Sea is dangerous. I'm not saying the Air Force have NO danger, but comparing their lifestyle to one haze gray and underway is silly.

Right now is an anomaly. We are thin and in a war. Once it's over the Air Force will go back to doing very little, and the Navy will go back to dangerously projecting power for the U.S far abroad and taking the risks of doing that.

[Diekan]

I don't think women should be excluded from the military all together, but I do not think they should serve in combat roles. Doctors, lawyers, admin clercks, so and so forth is fine - but Artillery, Infantry, Armor, Special Ops, Combat Engineers - no.

G.I Jane was a movie - not real life. However, I am sure that there are probably a few females out there who could handle the training. But, they are far and few inbetween. If you're going to open the doors to them, then you have to open the doors to ALL females - and that is a dangerous thing. For every "GI JANE" there are 20 women who simply cannot handle it, but would try anyway - just to prove a point if nothing else.

Women have no problem with being told that are there are certain things they can do better than men, but tell them there things men can do better than they raise holy hell. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Get over it. Men and women ARE built differently, no matter how much you kick and scream otherwise.

I remember having to deal with women in DIVARTY (division artillery - provides support to the field artilery, but isn't a combat unit)... the same loud mouths that were screaming bloody murder about not being able to get a combat MOS were the SAME women who'd complain about having to do hard manual work (because "I'm a girl I can't lift that cammo net").

[xaoshaen]

Like I said, Army and Marines are primarily in harms way during war. Navy is in harms way moreso during peace time. Air Force is in Mcdonalds drive through pretty much through both endeavors.

I'm sure there is no difference living in a hotel and fuelling planes, versus being on an Aircraft Carrier or Submarine. Anyone looking at that can clearly see there is equal danger!

Air Force Enlisted have it made. They have it a little less made due to the Iraqi war, but they still have vastly less danger and vastly easier lifestyles.

And yes, being at Sea is dangerous. I'm not saying the Air Force have NO danger, but comparing their lifestyle to one haze gray and underway is silly.

Right now is an anomaly. We are thin and in a war. Once it's over the Air Force will go back to doing very little, and the Navy will go back to dangerously projecting power for the U.S far abroad and taking the risks of doing that.

So, how about those casualty figures for the Navy? What are the odds of a given person out of 366,763 actually dying?

No, most Air Force personnel aren't in any particular danger. I maintain that neither are naval personnel. I can understand cross-service derogatory generalization, even that which isn't rooted in reality (admit it, you don't really have a grasp on what an average airmen does), but you should be able to at least provide some actual evidence that an average member of your own service runs an abnormally high risk of death. If you can't... it might just be that the risk is largely imaginary.

[Lyion]

I've seen friends die in Helicopter accidents. I've seen lines parting at sea. You consider it trivial because you do not understand these things.

Er, I was married to an Airwoman. I think I know what they do. I'll let you find the Air Force statistics for deaths from 1994 to 2004.

Here's Naval AVIATION rating deaths only recently, which show the danger in some Naval Rates. Note these are enlisted only. These do not include officers flying combat air patrols, Seal Deaths, or other combat related deaths. These are only deaths while doing that easy safe work that the Navy people do

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... i_n8694051

Rate Population Deaths/Inj Mishap Rate Death Rate

DCFN 183 2/6 437.16 109.29
GSEFN 277 4/8 433.21 144.40
ENFN 372 3/10 349.46 80.65
AZAN 258 3/6 348.84 116.28
AW3 380 2/9 289.47 52.63
ICFN 391 6/5 281.33 153.45
SW3 187 2/3 267.38 106.95
GMSN 308 1/6 227.27 32.47
STG3 800 4/14 225.00 50.00
FCSN 357 1/5 196.08 28.01
OSSN 1,253 5/19 191.54 39.90
YNSN 473 1/7 190.27 21.14
PRAN 264 1/4 189.39 37.88
MMFN 1,225 10/10 187.76 81.63
HTFN 541 2/8 184.84 36.97
ADAN 1,417 5/21 183.49 35.29

TOTALS 8,686 521/41 222.20 59.87
Top-50 38,340 169/443 159.62 44.08
All Rates 328,235 611/1,778 72.78 18.61


I maintain that many Naval personnel are in Danger. They are well trained and obviously not in the 'GRAVE' danger that a Marine in Fallujah might be in, but much moreso than your average Airman.

I'll leave it to you to find the Air Force deaths over the last 10 years, but I'll wager they are nowhere near as high. Especially since most Air Force deaths seem to be suicide for some reason.

The equivalent Navy Airmen death ratio is 1 in 226. The chance of getting injured or killed goes to 1 in 62 for Naval Aviation enlisted billets.

Please let me know what the dangers are for Air Force Airmen. I highly doubt 1 in 62 of them were getting hurt, or 1 in 226 of them were getting killed.

[xaoshaen]

I've seen friends die in Helicopter accidents. I've seen lines parting at sea. You consider it trivial because you do not understand these things.

I am sorry to hear about the loss of your friends. No death is trivial, nor would I attempt to make it so. I do understand the loss of friends to non-combat causes, but fortunately these remain the exception rather than the rule for U.S. forces.

Here's Naval AVIATION rating deaths only recently, which show the danger in some Naval Rates. Note these are enlisted only. These do not include officers flying combat air patrols, Seal Deaths, or other combat related deaths. These are only deaths while doing that easy safe work that the Navy people do

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... i_n8694051

Rate Population Deaths/Inj Mishap Rate Death Rate

DCFN 183 2/6 437.16 109.29
GSEFN 277 4/8 433.21 144.40
ENFN 372 3/10 349.46 80.65
AZAN 258 3/6 348.84 116.28
AW3 380 2/9 289.47 52.63
ICFN 391 6/5 281.33 153.45
SW3 187 2/3 267.38 106.95
GMSN 308 1/6 227.27 32.47
STG3 800 4/14 225.00 50.00
FCSN 357 1/5 196.08 28.01
OSSN 1,253 5/19 191.54 39.90
YNSN 473 1/7 190.27 21.14
PRAN 264 1/4 189.39 37.88
MMFN 1,225 10/10 187.76 81.63
HTFN 541 2/8 184.84 36.97
ADAN 1,417 5/21 183.49 35.29

TOTALS 8,686 521/41 222.20 59.87
Top-50 38,340 169/443 159.62 44.08
All Rates 328,235 611/1,778 72.78 18.61


I maintain that many Naval personnel are in Danger. They are well trained and obviously not in the 'GRAVE' danger that a Marine in Fallujah might be in, but much moreso than your average Airman.

If by "easy safe work that the Navy people do" you mean "driving a car". That article addresses incidents and fatalities arising from PMV-related mishaps... car wrecks. Furthermore, the link you used was actually a subsequent study to the "naval aviation-only" study. I honestly have no idea if Airmen are in more danger on the highways than sailors, but I'll assume that's not what you were shooting for and won't look up any data unless you confirm that I missed the point of you linking this table.

I'll leave it to you to find the Air Force deaths over the last 10 years, but I'll wager they are nowhere near as high. Especially since most Air Force deaths seem to be suicide for some reason.

It's funny you should bring up suicide rates. It show you're relying on old data or possibly just misconceptions. Suicide was either the 2nd or 3rd leading cause of death among sailors over the past ten years. As of 1999, the Air Force suicide rate was the lowest of any branch, and the rate has continued to decline.

I'm sure that the Air Force overall mortality rates are lower than those of the Navy, but neither service places the lives of its servicemen and -women in jeapordy lightly.

[Lyion]

I can't tell if those statistics are solely driving or injury/death. I thought they were not just PMV. If so, my bad.

Anyways, this is another decent article showing the dangers of the Navy. It's a bit dated, but you can get the general 'gist' of issues. Plus we are operating more lean and mean which makes things more prone for disaster at sea.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... _n12428497

The U.S. Navy's snafu blues Crashed jets, sailors washed overboard, shipboard fires, collisions at sea. Inevitably, accidents are the stuff of any peacetime navy, especially one with 566 ships. But when 14 occur in just six weeks, leaving 13 dead--with all the snafus attracting growing media attention--the chief of naval operations must do something. Last week, Adm. Carlisle Trost did. He ordered the entire U.S. Navy to take an unprecedented 48 hours off for refresher safety training.

But if something is seriously amiss in the Navy, the experts have yet to find it. No common thread has been spotted in the string of accidents, lengthened last week by the crash of an F-14 jet in the Gulf of Mexico and a shipboard fire in Norfolk that injured 31 sailors. The quality of Navy recruits is up, and operations, the essence of on-the-job training, have not been cut. In fact, the events of recent weeks could be no more than a statistical blip. So far this year, the Navy has had 69 serious accidents and 55 deaths in those accidents (not counting the 47 deaths from the U.S.S. Iowa gun-turret explosion in April, which the Navy labels an "intentional act" by a suicide-bent sailor). This year's numbers show a downward trend since 1984, a year in which major Navy accidents totaled 118 and deaths 64. The current rate of about two accidents per week is no worse than that of 1984, when there was little public outcry and the Navy took no special action. The biggest cause of death in the Navy is automobile accidents, both on and off duty, which took 250 lives in 1988.

Even if the spate of training accidents eases soon, the Navy dares not rest on its oars. Pressed by a shrinking defense budget, the admirals will be tempted to make disproportionate cuts in the $25 billion allocated to naval operations and maintenance. If operations decrease, so will training, and that could bring more accidents. There is another worry, too. A drive for safety consciousness may backfire in combat. Says Norman Polmar, an expert on sea power and consultant to the Navy, "Overly cautious officers are avoiders, they're not fighters."

Things like this are more common in the Navy

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?sec ... chive=true

The sad thing is it's probably more dangerous on the roads, since there are more idiots and young military people are prone to a lot of drinking and often driving.

Navy people are bit more prone to depression and suicide. Spending 9 months at a time living in shared living with litle privacy, horrible working conditions, and a lot of frustration is difficult. More difficult as I've said than deploying to four star hotels, or even a nice campout in Muscat.

Then again, some of the 'suicides' were annoying fuckers getting tossed overboard. I'm not sure how we should label them.

[Lyion]

On a completely unrelated death statistics note, this column disturbed me greatly:

http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNe ... 0999054605

Another Shameful Navy Cover-Up



By David H. Hackworth



Six Americans dead and 34 wounded. What a terrible waste. I have a hard time understanding why a group of naval warriors gathered closely together out in the open, creating a super-juicy target for an Iraqi insurgent mortar team that’s been hammering Base Junction City ever since our troops first set up there.



“Always spread out, or one round will get you all,” was the First Commandment of Survival when I was a kid serving in Italy. The terrible tragedy that occurred in Iraq last May underscores the importance of this often-neglected rule.



Junction City sits right in the middle of Injun country – in Anbar province about 60 miles west of Baghdad, where the insurgents are serious fanatics and the fighting is fierce. A very bad place.



The word from many surviving Seabees of the gallant Reserve Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 14 that took these catastrophic casualties is that they were ordered to assemble in an open yard at their base for a pep talk from Rear Adm. Charles Kubic, who, according to a salty Navy commander, was making one of his monthly self-serving visits to Iraq from Norfolk, Va. “Kubic came to Iraq for the last two days of every month and the first two of the next to get tax breaks.”



The same source says: “Several officers argued with Kubic, saying it wasn’t smart to assemble the men. But they were rudely overrode.”



Family members of the dead reservists are furious that heads have not rolled. Their specific target is Kubic, whom they hold responsible for the loss of their loved ones even though he now denies giving the fatal order. Phone calls have been placed and letters written to lawmakers, and the bereaved keep getting promised swift action.



The surviving Seabees, a most patriotic group, love the U.S. Navy and almost to a man want to return to Iraq to finish the job. So they will only speak off-record. But they don’t have kind words for Kubic, since he ordered them to make his bed, bring ice-cold water to his quarters and generally act as his personal houseboys during his trips to Iraq. The admiral’s attitude didn’t go down well with these rugged reservist warrior-builders, the proud inheritors of a legendary tradition: “We're the Seabees of the Navy, we can build and we can fight; We’ll pave our way to victory and guard it day and night.”



The irony is that Kubic apparently fancies himself as a heroic warrior. In the first days of the invasion of Iraq, he was hunkered down in a bunker with his staff when a Scud missile whistled several thousand feet overhead – for which daring feat he was later awarded a Bronze Star for heroism under fire. He claims he’s run 3,100 combat patrols in Iraq and knows what insurgency warfare is all about.



With all of this combat experience, the braggart must have had brain shutdown that bloody day to lose so many men to one single round of mortar fire. Any knowledgeable, responsible leader would have ordered the assemblage to put on their helmets and flak jackets and spread out.



There are many other questions that need answers, including:



* Why weren't his Seabees properly trained for fighting in an insurgent environment?



* Why were they allowed to deploy without armored Humvees a year after the war kicked off?



* Why was this Navy construction unit assigned road-security missions for which it wasn’t trained or equipped?



That aside, here's the kicker: Numerous sailors have told me that Kubic “liberated” a fancy bar from Fallujah and shipped it back to the States on a USAF C-17. For sure, souvenirs are swell – but not when a mission-essential aircraft is dragooned to make an incompetent admiral’s day.



The Navy should do its duty and investigate this mess, because it ain’t going away any time soon. Cheryl Dossett of Wapello, Iowa, the mother of Trace Dossett – who was killed in the mortar attack – said only a few days ago that a member of the Navy Casualty Notification Team confirmed the Seabees “were called out of their quarters into a formation.”



If this is the case, Kubic should be recalled to active duty and court-martialed. Only a thorough and unbiased Navy investigation will reveal the truth and allow justice to at last prevail.

[brinstar]

i assumed this would be a pr0n thread

boy was i wrong

[shiraz]

I seriously considered going to the Naval Academy or Air Force Academy for college. Not because I wanted any role in combat, but because I wanted to study fluid dynamics, aerodynamics, and help design planes and submarines. Around the time I was looking into the application, there was some big scandal at the Naval Academy involving a sexual harassment case with some of the female students. I also heard some tales of how women were constantly told that they didn't belong there.

So instead I went to private college and devoted my life to academics as one of those liberal biased overpaid and underworked professors

[The Kizzy]

Lyion is a question dodger.

[Sithos]

Fuck that, I will stay home and be a good woman. Put me in the kitchen let me cook you a meal, clean your house, and give you a good fuck.... screw women's liberation movements.

If I wasn't already married.....


As to the theme of the thread I think it is less about being female or male but rather who can do the job. What if the guard had been a 110 pound male. Would it have made a difference? Likely not. It just so happened that whomever gave out the duty roster that day for that assignment screwed up. Not because they put a female there to do the job but rather they needed a gorilla.

As was stated earlier there are many things that people of both sexes can do well. Yes males hold the majority when it comes to "bull" work but thats not to say that certain woman can't do the job equally well.

[The Kizzy]

I think that if a woman can prove herself physically, mentally, and emotionally, then there should be no reason why she shouldn't be able to do the same jobs the men are doing.

[Lyion]

I think that if a woman can prove herself physically, mentally, and emotionally, then there should be no reason why she shouldn't be able to do the same jobs the men are doing.

What question did I dodge? I am against women in combat units or deployed on ships. I've stated why several times.

[The Kizzy]

Damn, you got me.

In all seriousness, why is it a woman's fault that a man can not get over his emotions and do his job?

P.S. Do YOU have a master chief uniform?

[Captain Insano]

Some of the best snipers in the world have been female - of course not American, because we're a sexist nation. Just sayin'.

uhh huhh... Yah right sweet heart. The best snipers in the world and in history were all men. I have no idea where you concocted that load of shit. As far as a sexist nation.... We are the most liberal of any nation when it comes to employing women in the military by a longshot.

Having trained with the Korean Marines, the British, Thai, French and German military I can tell you that most of those services don't let women anywhere near their infantry outfits. As a result of this practice they are BY FAR more disciplined, better trained and much more capable of surviving in war.

As a close combat instructor in the Marines I trained and fought in a ring with some of the strongest and best conditioned women I have ever seen. .... If I went even close to 100 percent in my efforts I could have destroyed each and every last one of them, not to mention I am by no means one of the biggest guys out there.

Bottom line... When it comes to firefighting, police work or the military woman have no place whatsoever. A man will do a better job in every aspect and in doing so SAVE LIVES. If woman want so bad to be part of these groups of people maybe they should try passing all the SAME physical fitness standards that men adhere too; such as being required to do pull-ups instead of hanging from the fucking bar... GOD forbid a tank or LAV or amtrak gets hit and a woman is forced to pull a comrade from the burning wreckage... I sure hope her 50 percent less upper body strength and 100 pound weight difference doesn't impeed her from savings someone's life.

[Captain Insano]

Sniping is different. I could see myself being able to do that sucessfully, but trucking around in the front lines would just put more people in danger than it would help in my case.

hahahah.... Yah sniping is easy you don't need much strength or endurace for that... God forbid you have to hump your weapon, a shitload of rounds and all your gear through 50 miles of mountain, jungle and shit so that you can sit for 3 days without moving hoping you get one good shot at your target. LOL We used to do hikes of 6, 12 and 20 miles with the most minimal of gear and we weren't even infantry... When the men did it we just did it no questions asked... When the women were around they had to have a fucking HMMV follow behind the column to pick them up as they fell out and gave up.


You want to know what it's like to be a sniper read the book: Marine Sniper... Its about Carlos Hathcock, argueably the best sniper to have ever lived.

[Diekan]

Women aren't nearly as physically capable nor as emotionally prepared to handle war.

Yet in every example given, the man would not be able to do his job because of the fear of death of the woman. Who isn't emotionally capable?

American males have always been traditionally raised to protect women. It's, by and large, a part of our upbringing (generally speaking).

I don't understand why that isn't an acceptable reason. We can chalk up a criminal's behavior to "he's a product of his environment," but we can't accept the fact that American men have been taught to protect women, and as such are more apt to assist their female comrades than their male counterparts in combat situations.

There ARE physiological difference between men and women, period. I'm all for equality, but that doesn't mean I don't accept that are still differences, between the genders, that should restrict access to certain fields of occupation.

You can't open the door for one or two women, and keep all the others out.

[Captain Insano]

I get what you're saying Lyion, but I think that same concept could be applied to men as well. There's always these tiny little pissant guys in the infantry...how are they any different than a woman carrying around a pack....if strength is the issue?
People are quick to jump on the "it was because she was a woman" excuse if something goes wrong, but if a man dies in combat he was just serving his country so on and so forth. Example: on the CNN casualty site it shows the pictures of the fallen next to date/what happened etc. Now, not saying this wasn't tragic but one of the more recent deaths on there was a guy who shot HIMSELF in the head during a training excercise. I reallly think that if that had been a woman...people would be blaming it on that - "See, Billybob? That's what happens when they let them there wenches near a shotgun."

Those pissant guys are still twice as strong as the same women by weight and have twice the endurance... Even the smallest of the guys in the military could still carry their needed gear, weapons etc and handle themselves adequately in a field environment. I could write pages about how 95 percent of the women under my command failed regularly in countless training exercises that were designed to teach the most basic fundamentals of surviving in war.

The biggest problem is that the feminists don't realize that in a military environment you are only as strong as your weakest link. That weak link in most units is the females hands down. When the shit hits the fan you need a unit that is cohesive and able to do their job appropriately. What they don't need is their soldiers picking up the slack of the weak links instead of working on staying alive and defeating the enemy.

The presence of women in the military fuck up discpline, morale, training, and ultimately our successfulness on the battlefield, resulting in people getting killed.

There is no political agenda worth putting people's lives at risk over blind arrogance in assuming a women can do a man's job.

[Arlos]

Anyone have anything against women fighter pilots? From everything I've read, they're much better physiologically suited for it, higher G-tolerance, etc. None of Lyion's Navy issues, no worries about some guy being overly chivalrous next to her, since she's in a single-seat plane, etc. While I can definitely see some issues with women in an infantry role, I've yet to hear a good reason to keep them from being pilots.

-Arlos

[Captain Insano]

Well honestly this is kind of a stupid converstation - I guess those of you with a problem with women in the military should write your congressman, and in the meantime sorry about your bad luck.

p.s. I *love* the arguement about how women shouldn't be allowed in combat situations because the men would try to save them. What??? Wouldn't that be male weakness? I really don't think that women that would put themselves in that position are looking for chivalry. Give me a break, that's so lame.

You want to know whats lame?

Is that when Jessica Lynch's squad got lost fucking around in the desert and approached by enemy that instead of fighting like she was *supposedly* trained to that she threw down her weapon and started to cry. She actually publicly admitted this LONG after the ceremonies and awards were handed out to her and she was heralded as a *model* example of the fine service and distinction women in the military provide.

You want to know whats even more fucked? Is that they diverted a shitton of heavy and medium cavalry to aid in her politically charged rescue...

aaaannnd unfortunately that left a fucking division of Marines to fight their way through a dense urban city with only their rifles and HMMV's while they got assfucked from all sides by local militia and loyalists to Saddam Hussein taking severe casualties and countless unnecessary deaths.... All because Jessica Lynch had to get NOT put up any fight whatsoever, get captured, and drag critical support elements to her aid away from where they were really needed.

Seriously... Most of you hear the news, read your blogs and think you really know what is going on over in Iraq. What you don't see are the reports from Buck Privates all the way up to senior officer staff detailing the way shit really went down.

That arguement about men not coming to the aid of women was proven completely false, not to mention assinine, by the whole Jessica Lynch fiasco.

That dumb bitch has a lot of blood on her hands as far as I'm concerned.