We have always had moral qualms about using children in war; one of the most disgusting scenes of World war II was Hitler in his last days encouraging little German boys to go out and die in a hopeless cause. And yet when there is no pressing need for it the progressives want to use women.
Some “progress”—
42 comments
Really, I thought one of the most disgusting scenes was that of the skeletal corpses being bulldozed into a mass grave at Bergen-Belsen. That and the one of the naked women and children waiting in line to be shot at Babi Yar. That's what those big "manly" Nazis did.
And P.S., women are not children, we are fully developed adults who, with the proper training, can do anything a man can do.
The history of children in warfare is far more extensive and well worth researching. As a matter of fact, 'we' have not 'always' had moral qualms about using children in war. Navies during the 17th-19th centuries made common use of boys to run charges of black powder from the ship's magazines to the guns. Boys of a higher social class aspiring to be officers would be expected to have worked on warships from as young as 11 years old.
Needless to say, morality has moved on. Please try and move with it, because comparing women woldiers to child soldiers is stupidity, and your inane statement about children in war also displays your ignorance.
First off, W.T.F Lice...
Women are not children.
There's not literal warfare in the Women's Movement.
If this is about the Military, the women WANT to fight.
As awful as forcing kids to fight the Allies was, the death camps would qualify as a gazillion times worse.
Enough with the Godwins, already! Hitler & Progressives go together like oil & water!
But it's ok to kill kids in Iraq, Afghanistan, Benghazi, Vietnam, etc, etc.
Yeah! Some progress. We went from requiring people to go to war to people enlisting of their own free will. This is an atrocity!
Seriously though, the women in the military could probably kill you 42 different ways before you can say "Get back in the kitchen". Unlike the children, they're err....not children. And they are trained for any situation they can encounter on the battlefield. Plus, did I mention that the women are volunteering? I think I did but it's kind of an important point.
Women in the military can and do make immense contributions. But in general they cannot "do everything a man does," and it does not denigrate them to say they have no business in infantry combat. Historical exceptions to this, or the fact that women "want to," are beside the point. As I quite recently suggested, if you disagree, please re-watch the first 15 minutes of Saving Private Ryan.
Woman want to, we shouldn't judge.
They are also different from children.
And did you seriously just say that is the worst thing Hitler did?
Well, when women enter the military, they get trained to be effective soldiers, making them competent at fighting, shooting, and whatever else their position requires.
So yeah, W.F. Price's position kinda falls flat on its face right there.
Not trying to justify the Nazis (over my dead body!), but seriously: you have a huge patriotic-induced army at the door of your city with few people in the army. What do you do then? Basically you pull out children, old and wounded to fight for the last few kilometers wide your once-powerful Reich extends to. If not, then give me a good alternative, since you seem to know way more then any of us on war strategies.
No, see, the thing is, we're saying that if a woman wishes to serve her country, she should be free to just as any man would, provided, of course, she meets the physical standards. But, I'm willing to concede. Any woman you deem unfit to serve, you're more than willing to take her place. Go on, big man. Show us what you're made of.
Well, there is something called MATURITY and CONSENT that play a role in joining the army. Following your logic, why people enlist in the army, anyway?
Okay, okay, yes this article is super insulting to women by implying that they are just big children or whatever, but seriously, it's talking about extending the draft to women (if they ever brought it back), not about volunteering, and I am NOT okay with that, largely because I do NOT want to fight. Is this because I'm a woman or just because I'm a bloody coward? I don't know; I think if I was a guy, I would probably STILL be a bloody coward, and I really, really, REALLY don't want them to ever bring back the draft anyway, because not all men are meant to be fighters. I don't want my younger brother to have to go to war. That being said, I know it's also not right to keep sending the same soldiers back over and over again, but seriously, when does it end? They say we have to "fight for our freedom", but what's the point if the fighting never ends?
I am against forcing people to fight in a war, that is why I am against a draft.I believe that anyone over the age of eighteen that wants to fight and is fighting fit should be allowed to join.
This isn't about using women its about letting women fight if they want to.
image
image
image
Well, it's progress when we win .
In more ways than one, WTF Price.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.