reply to post by yankeerose
In the military, we need female doctors, nurses, data personnel, communications personnel, and similar non-combat related specialties, but under no
circumstances should a woman be anywhere in a combat influenced area.
There is one set of physical fitness standards for men, and a different standard for women. No, no, no! Standards are standards! We on't need
women driving trucks in combat zones, or wearing Airborne wings! You have to be ****ing me!
Now we've all know some ugly-faced short-haired corn-fed women who could throw a 300-pound bouncer through the front window, out belch a
beer-drinking rugby team, out-fart leather-faced campfire, bean-eating cowboys, out-spit the White Sox, and out-cuss first-generation longshoremen,
but I certainly don't want to be stuck in combat with a woman.
Women who are taken prisoner will provide unnecessary leverage against other decent male prisoners. What if she is a mom to boot? Our enemies look
upon women with contempt. Thus, they will especially treat female military prisoners with extreme contempt.
So, if I get shot and need to be dragged or carried to safety, is sugar-pants going to have the upper body strength to carry me and my weapon -
without breaking a nail?
No, but I can tell you what I can depend on. Every month a little problem comes along, and without proper bathing facilities things get really ripe
No. Women can do a lot of things. Many things better than a man. But not in a combat zone.
And to the turdnuggets who think the military is some kind of machine, killing for the hell of it - you don't know anything about it. Not one of you
has ever been in face to face combat. And it is my sincere hope that you know as much about fornicating, as I'd hate the thought of you
Your comments make as much sense as me analyzing and commenting on the classical influence during the early days of the Rennaisance. I don't know
anything about it, but at least I know what I don't know!