Comments on: The Oil-For-Food Stuff And Other Thievery

By: Raymond C. Coleman

Raymond C. Coleman — Mon, 11 Oct 2004 15:09:07 +0000

Idler, that is just common sense!

By: Idler

Idler — Sun, 10 Oct 2004 21:00:10 +0000

Mr. Coleman:

As always, fine posts- your methodology of war reminds me very much of Sean Connery’s speech in the Untouchables…
Something alone the lines of:

“They put one of yours in the hospital, you put two of theirs in the morgue.That’s the Chicago way.”

Gonna have to look at that movie again……

By: Raymond C. Coleman

Raymond C. Coleman — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 20:09:29 +0000

Let qualified women in but KEEP THEM SEPARATE from the men. Form the “Pink Berets” or something. Just keep them out of the way of the REAL soldiers.

By: SCSIwuzzy

SCSIwuzzy — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 19:55:05 +0000

Raymond,
that was my point. If an individual can meet the standard, them let them serve.
I may want to serve with my family members in the Army and USMC, but I have floating kneecap and nerve damage in my left hand (from seperate accidents in my youth). Both preclude me from combat service, and no matter how much I may want to do it, the Pentagon is right to exclude me.
Now, if you get women who are built like russian olympians before they tested for drugs… by all means, hand them a gun and train them.
And for those who can’t pass the test, if the need is great enough, there is always need for people in the QMC and other non-combat jobs that can be filled by the less able.
Just what some of the other posters need… more REMFs.

By: Raymond C. Coleman

Raymond C. Coleman — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 19:11:21 +0000

And your “ifs” would never be confirmed on a workable level. The fact of the matter is that a woman even at her best is probably only as strong as a below to average man. At least with that below to average man, I can still work on him to make him stronger, faster,and better. The girl is maxed out and useless.

The standard was what it was to insure a qualified soldier. It was never created to keep girls out. Now it is lower and we see the results. Lawsuits, rapes, false claims of rape, pregancies, STD, etc. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

I agree with most of what you posted Scuzzy!

By: SCSIwuzzy

SCSIwuzzy — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 17:33:25 +0000

Nope.
My posistion on women in service is the same as it is for men. If they can throw a grande far enough, run fast enough, and hike all day with a full pack, then they are good enough.
That fewer women can meet that standard is no reason to lower it.
There are other jobs to be done that don’t require the physical strength and endurance that men have the edge with.
And when fighting sick SOBs like the islamo-fascists… the last thing I want to do is to hand them an infidel woman.

By: Raymond C. Coleman

Raymond C. Coleman — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 17:12:33 +0000

OH, that is what I thought you were implying.

By: SCSIwuzzy

SCSIwuzzy — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 15:32:12 +0000

Raymond,
I never said anyting about women in service.

By: Raymond C. Coleman

Raymond C. Coleman — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 15:08:10 +0000

Bush is not killing enough people and breaking enough hardware and buildings for this to be considered a war. We need someone who is totally offensive minded to prosecute this war. Someone like me, Gen. George S. Patton or Coach Steve Spurrier. LOL!!

By: Raymond C. Coleman

Raymond C. Coleman — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 15:06:17 +0000

Sorry Scuzzy,

While I respect a woman’s desire to serve her country, based on DIRECT PERSONAL experience, I don’t put much stock in their fighting ability and think it is a HORRIBLE idea and failed experiment to put women into battle. In fact, their being admitted to an no co-ed integrated military as a social experiment and at a lower standard when it comes to admission requirements sickens me.

I think women play a vital role in SUPPORT MOSs, but they do not add ANY value to fight capability. In fact they hinder and weaken it.

The old format in which women served in a separate auxilliary corps was the best and we should return to that.

Just giving you the raw and uncut version.

By: Andy

Andy — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 14:18:26 +0000

Agreed SCSI

By: SCSIwuzzy

SCSIwuzzy — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 14:10:48 +0000

Andy, Raymond,
The main lesson I wish we had learned from the Vietnam war: let the warriors fight the wars the politicians get us into, and don’t stop until they’ve finished the job.
With politicians at home in DC dictating how things could be done, it left the officers and troops on the ground with limited options…
Bush and co are allowing some of the same things to happen in Iraq, and Kerry… don’t even get me started on how I think Senator weather-cock will handle things.

By: Andy

Andy — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 05:35:16 +0000

Raymond, what about women

Don’t worry, I’ve been responsible for other’s safety & security for a good couple decades. For all we know, you might have even been under my responsibilty a time or two, although not battle-tested. Just my luck to have missed out on various engagements. I might have been at the wrong place, at the wrong time, but I doubt the wrong man.

Peace!

By: Jim

Jim — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 02:25:33 +0000

Actually, according to the spin NPR put on it this afternoon, Duelfer proves, “BUSHLIED!!!!”, and that the sanctions were most definitely, obviously, and absolutely working, which anyone who had the intelligence of a toadstool would have known all along–of course, I don’t have such intelligence (academic or strategic), so I didn’t know that, and still don’t (and won’t) know.

In other words, why would the MSM allow such a pesky thing as a fact get in the way?

By: Raymond C. Coleman

Raymond C. Coleman — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 02:15:28 +0000

Agreed Joshua. Agreed indeed.