Watergate's Deep Throat Revealed

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

... but GI JANE had one scene that was very accurate. the scene was when Vigo M. said that the problem with women in combat isn't with the women, it is with the men. most men could not handle women being severely wounded, etc.. in their presence. most guys i know have an instinctive expectation that women are to be protected - sometimes that is incompatible with the appropriate actions in a combat situation.

chauvanistic? maybe, but it is true. the men will just have to get over it, if women want to be in a combat role.

I am rather surprised at a pragmatic attitude from lookout123. This issue has mystified me for some time now. From my emotions, I agree with Vigo M's assertions. But then that is also where my racism comes from - first impressions. The logical me has had doubts for some time. Is the problem of 'women on the line' based upon a man's response? Maybe. But where is the research - the necessary facts?

For example, why does the soldier fight? For god and country? Bull - only in a world of extremist liberals and neocons. #1 reason - soldier fights to protect his buddies. They are all just more muddy souls - black or white, man or women, eyes, hair, size, whatever. The bond must be made 'brain to brain' - the bias of external features eliminated. Each has unique strengths and weaknesses. They are all Storm Troopers for the Republic. Good buddies - man or woman - must not matter? When the Storm Trooper in the latest Star Wars movie had a buddy down, what did he do? He stopped fighting and took care of his buddy. Even mindless soldiers called Storm Trooper do that. Why would it matter if it was a man or women? IOW where are the facts so necessary before expressing an opinion?

It’s convenient to have an emotional response. Then one need not perform reading and research. Meanwhile, others demand facts?

Do I express an opinion yes or no? If you think so, then you also have this problem I so often confront. It’s a ternary world. Others unfortunately may assume the world is binary - and ttherefore assume I have expressed an opinion.

I bring one observation to the table. When running volunteer groups, groups with all women (at least at the teenager age) work best. Strength has nothing to do with physical size or testosterone. Mixed groups or groups of all guys don't always work as productively. This is rather a change from the seventies - using my perspective - when the guys did every crap job and never complained. My bias? I came from a circle and community where accomplishment was so 'inbrained' (yes I know it is suppose to be ingrained) that we literally were #1 or #2 in every athletic sport. So maybe I have some unreasonable 1960s bias that distorts my perceptions. But when it comes to getting jobs done today, the worst jobs were performed successfully by groups numerically dominated by women.

It is my perception - an observation - that today's teenage women are tougher than today's teenage men. I never ask anyone to do anything I would not and have not done. And yet some guys will literally give up on what the old man would still do.

Ok. I have stated what was observed. Are women in military combat a problem? My gut feeling is - no definitive answer. Now where are the studies?

Those with a political agenda - those who fear to first learn - would keep women far away from combat? It's called equality verses a quitter’s attitude. Until they can prove this is a problem (logically or pragmatically), then they better damn well prove they don't have some extremist agenda. Currently there is no good reason that some soldiers should be banned from any military duty only based upon sex. Its time to learn what we all can and cannot accomplish. Until we have facts, extremist politicians should button their propaganda holes. Time to first provide real facts (and do the research) rather then let Rush Limbaugh reasoning dominate the issue. The concepts cited in GI Jane are based upon fiction. Many fiction writers fail to first do two years of research. GI Jane only asks a question - and provides no facts. Where are the facts?

Meanwhile, using same speculations, lookout123 also condemns Mark Felt for doing what we now konw was so important in perserving the US Constituion. That too is a fact only made even more obvious by recent releases of the Nixon tapes (which I believe can be listened to in the U of Maryland library). Nixon was so bad that Mark Felt deserves nothing but praise. Facts again in the face of lookout123's emotional attitudes.

[lookout123]

Facts again in the face of lookout123's emotional attitudes.

once again, tw WTF are you talking about? i don't revere Mark Felt the way you do, so i must be making emotional assumptions? his work in helping bring down a crooked politician is a positive. i still think that he could and should have done it a better way. that's just me though, you are free to think whatever you want - just don't make the assumption that because my thoughts differ from your own that i must be irrational and wrong.

did you even read my post toward the top of the page? or is this just another example of you choosing to ignore something that hits a little close to home?

and about providing proof for male reactions to the presence of female danger on the battlefield - you know as well as anyone that it is unproveable one way or the other. human emotion and reaction to these stresses is unquantifiable. in that area, i will have to go back to my experiences in the military in deployed situations over the last 13 years - i'm the air force so most of our jobs aren't classified as combat (which means we have women in almost every job) and yet, we have been in combat zones frequently. i stand by my earlier post.

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

once again, tw WTF are you talking about? i don't revere Mark Felt the way you do, so i must be making emotional assumptions?

The bible does not tell you how to regard whistle blowers. And since whistle blowers are a threat to a lying president, then Mark Felt must be evil. That is clearly what you have posted. You are just trying to be too politically correct to be honest.

"WTF" - clearly there is a devil in you. Or are you just being emotional (angry) again. God may smite you. Be careful what you post.

[lookout123]

well, there's a hell of a way to answer questions, i suppose.

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

i stand by my earlier post.

Just as George Jr stood by claims that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction? Anyone can use emotions to conclude anything. But if women in combat was such a problem, then the problem can even be quantified. Lookout123 instead would have us believe it cannot be quantified. Rush Limbaugh type propaganda.

No facts exist or prove that women in combat is a problem, just as there are not facts in lookout123's reasoning. He just *feels* it must be true. That is sufficient for him to declare it a fact.

And so we have the same logic that also justifies evolution. "I feel, therefore it must be true".

[lookout123]

yep, that is exactly what i said. way to summarize. don't know what the world would do without you,pal.