Misscnn said:

If you take a look into history. In 1942 women built the B-17 Bomber at the Douglas Aircraft Company.

Sure they did, I have an Aunt that helped and Hitler had women working because of the man shortage. That was before feminism and the government needed women for other purposes than destroying families. Today women get their nails dirty? Ha, how dare you to suggest such. Women were much better people way back before feminism reared it’s ugly mug.

Most women suck as people

billy said:

Fem why do you crack on Americans so much?
Are you jealous of them too?
Silly girl or is it silly sow.

I got relatives down under, in England and the USA.
Which is rather disturbing to think I may be related to Fem.

Now back to the manpost, it is right as usual.
Women get dirt under their nails? No way.
Remember for true equality you would have to force them into cushy high paying jobs so they can gossip all day and insult men.

Here a thought…
women don’t think things are suppose to break down or wear out and if it does well “Those darn men just can’t do nothing right.” They should have had a women build it.

[turn sarcasm filter off]

If you take a look into history. In 1942 women built the B-17 Bomber at the Douglas Aircraft Company.

–Strength and Honor–

-Dick

sonyad said:

Female posters to this blog tend to be shown little quarter. Female especially has had rudeness thrust upon her here. This is regrettable.

Sonyad, I think that is the first time any male here has acknowledged that or regretted it. That is very admirable of you. Thank you.

sonyad said:I like to think I, at least, am not unwarrantedly rude most of the time. However, my powers of jest and mockery exceed that of run of the mill mortal.

lol, yes they do. Especially when you call steering wheels, pretzels. Re: your own rudeness, maybe it was unwarranted, maybe it wasn’t, I can’t remember. Most of the time you seem sweet. I hope you don’t take that as demeaning, it isn’t.

I like to think I, at least, am not unwarrantedly rude most of the time. However, my powers of jest and mockery exceed that of run of the mill mortal.

Female, you’re an idiot if you think I’ll use Politik as moderator to have any more influence.

No, you’re the idiot. I didn’t say you would take the discussion there so that you could use mod powers to influence the discussion. Rather, if you cared to read correctly, then you would realise that what I said was that it may appear that way if you moved the discussion there.

It’s insulting, and, were I a woman, it would be hurtful, to have you criticizing me in that baseless fashion.

Come again? Something about unwarranted criticism? How ironic. And I didn’t even criticise you.

As a man, I can take it,

Are you sure?

but I might need a beer. Or tea.

Ever heard of two feet and a heartbeat? Use ‘em.

Now, Female, you came off as an idiot when you criticized Biff; sorry you did.

No, again, you come across as an idiot because if you care to reread my post, you would perhaps realise that I didn’t even criticise Biff! Jesus.
Sick of these constant bloody attacks from you.

OK first. Biff. Thanks for your service. That is a fact I’ve never heard, and I’ve friends who fly Apaches, but admittedly few ground-pounders. Yes here’s a new thread on Politik is where this must go.

Female, you’re an idiot if you think I’ll use Politik as moderator to have any more influence. I bend over backwards to be fair to the opposition there. Did I or did I not institute a set of rules that I asked (and Dick agreed) all to abide by to refrain from attacking you there?

It’s insulting, and, were I a woman, it would be hurtful, to have you criticizing me in that baseless fashion. As a man, I can take it, but I might need a beer. Or tea.

Now, Female, you came off as an idiot when you criticized Biff; sorry you did. That said, you came off as a polite and respectful idiot so no one — even Dick — should trash you. Your postings recently have become more respectful and logical and should be respected as such. But please, please, strive to make them so. Think… ‘would I still do this at 7am?’ whenever you post.

That said, the idea of retreating and using snipers? Trust me, you don’t know much about how war works, and it’s a good thing you weren’t in command.

Biff: thanks for the support on the Vincennes incident.

Yeah, further talk on this topic needs to go to http://www.menarebetterthanwomen.com/forums/post-5062.htm#5062

-wolfe (hoping this displays ok, I seem to have crashed Dick’s interpreter)

Also female Viet Cong fighters were probably involved in war long before any American female military officers graduated, and I don’t think feminism in Vietnam had much, if anything, to do with it. Some women would be capable in war..I may not be one of them, though out of necessity, I probaby could be, hopefully that will never happen. In any case, each to her own.

Anon said:

Okay. I think I would have turned the tanks around and retreated, then if possible, from the side, sent out snipers to shoot those driving the tanks.

A man wouldn’t think of doing that, Fem. Because the crew is like, you know, in a TANK.

Anon said:Though, I’m not sure how to get a bullet through the armoured metal.

No shit?

Anon said:
God, if you had to make that decision and do that Biff, I am truly sorry, how unbelievably awful.

That’s why when it comes to the shooting part of war, Fem, they don’t generally let women get involved. Some women think that’s not a good idea.

They don’t let pandas and dolphins get involved, either.

For much the same reasons.

-Big Al

During the end of the Iraq/Kuwait conflict the remaining Republican Guard started to tie kurdish women and kids to their tanks so we would not fire on them. The heat signature of a person stood out in sharp relief to the turret at 2km. It was quite evident what they were doing. The thermal images confirmed what our intel was telling us.

That is unbelievably sick. Thank you for sharing that but I am totally shocked and disturbed.

The T-72 has an engagement range of 1.7km and they were coming toward us. Ethically I had every right to order the fire command. Any civilian casualties would have been the fault of those animals who put them in harms way. I really want to know, (anyone) what would you have done in that situation?

Okay. I think I would have turned the tanks around and retreated, then if possible, from the side, sent out snipers to shoot those driving the tanks. Though, I’m not sure how to get a bullet through the armoured metal. Maybe shoot through the drivers window. If possible, I would call a satellite to send jamming signals to the enemies tanks to get them to stop and be incapable of firing.

If retreat wasn’t an option and the only option was to either not fire and then get myself blown up, or fire and kill the civilians and tanks….OMG, that is the worst moral dilemma I have ever come across…I think human instinct to preserve oneself would override the cognitions that you were also about to kill civilians, in which case, there is no blame or dishonour in that.
God, if you had to make that decision and do that Biff, I am truly sorry, how unbelievably awful.

I would like nothing more than for the US military to take about a week to say goodbye and come home en mass.

Come home from where? If you are suggesting Iraq, then that would be inappropriate because the US launched the attack there; they didn’t get invited to go there by the UN to help the country out.

Sure, if they were invited to help out and just ended up causing more problems or if they simply decided to help out voluntarily, with a similar result, then yes, they should leave. But that wasn’t the case. If they leave Iraq now, you will find that the problem which is trying to be contained will spread further afield. Then there really will be something strange in your neighbourhood….hmmm, is that why you have an artillery bunker?

It has been said the only thing limiting the US military is the US military. The main reason Bagdad is still standing is not from a lack of ability but rather a lack of command. America’s enemies do not have this same level of internal control.

As an American who served in the Army it is frustrating to hear our missions denigrated in world opinion and by the American press. I know first hand the lengths our soldiers go to limit civilian damage. In Somolia’s “blackhawk down” incident one possible easy solution would have been to bring in armour and start making ever-widening circles around the downed aircraft. Continue until proper fields of fire exist. Imagine the peripheral damage? As a result that option was not even considered. In fact heavy armour was not even brought in because of possible civilian harm.

During the end of the Iraq/Kuwait conflict the remaining Republican Guard started to tie kurdish women and kids to their tanks so we would not fire on them. The heat signature of a person stood out in sharp relief to the turret at 2km. It was quite evident what they were doing. The thermal images confirmed what our intel was telling us. The T-72 has an engagement range of 1.7km and they were coming toward us. Ethically I had every right to order the fire command. Any civilian casualties would have been the fault of those animals who put them in harms way. I really want to know, (anyone) what would you have done in that situation?

To me the navy captain who ordered the missle strike against an unknown (possibly hostile) aircraft quickly approaching was in a similar situation. He had about 30 seconds to make the call. If he is wrong his ship and all crew face what was a preventable attack. In a perfect world he could have monitored the civilian air traffic control and asked who was flying in his direction. But he did not and had to make decisions based on available intel. It was the epitomy of shortsightedness not to have that capability. The fault lies more with the instigators than with those reacting.

The problem is bigger than simple soldiers on the ground making difficult choices. The foundational problem is: should the US be involved in the first place. My answer is absolutely not. That includes Rowanda, that includes Kosovo. Any more I don’t care how many burned and mangled corpses they show on the evening news. Some idiot somewhere made a stupid mistake that caused the issue du jur, and it wasn’t me.

Even now with Israel and whoever doing whatever the cry has gone up for the US to do something. Someone explain how a couple groups of people killing each other over a land mass smaller than New Jersey is my problem? Why yes, that does suck. But it does not answer why I should be involved.

Bottom line: I would like nothing more than for the US military to take about a week to say goodbye and come home en mass. Likewise the UN can take about a week to pack up and find a home elsewhere cause the US ain’t playing any more. If anyone needs help they can call…

Anon said:

If you are the Mod of that forum, it may be perceived as biased if you move it there.

Shut the fuck up, Female.

-Dick

this should be in Politik. If the discussion continues, I’ll move it there.

If you are the Mod of that forum, it may be perceived as biased if you move it there. Would be better to keep the discussion here in order to maintain impartiality and neutrality and avoid what may be unwarranted claims of Forum bias/censorship etc.

With respect Anon, your view is entirely legitimate. Your knowledge of history is either biased or altogether lacking.

Yes, I admitted that my knowledge of history, or wars, in particular is pretty sparse.

- Kuwait. A no brainer, even if it was a war for oil. Again, helped along by stunning US diplomatic incompetence.

A man told me the other day that Kuwait used to be a part of Iraq, so that when Saddam invaded, he was attempting to take back Iraqi oil fields.
Like I said, I’m pretty ignorant in this area. My knowledge of 1990 war extends to Jarhead and the Three Kings.

Sony, what you say is silly. The sarcasm isn’t appreciated.

No it wasn’t remotely chivalry and honour. It was wrong, deeply so. At best it was a horrible mistake. You know I’m not arguing that it was chivalry and honour so I don’t know why you put those words in my mouth.

The US does a lot of wrong, though we probably disagree on what some of that is.

Yes, the USN and the Royal Navy are generally ‘forces for good’. Doesn’t mean they don’t make mistakes, or do bad things.

The world would be worse without America; yeah, I believe that. If you choose not to, that’s your lookout. That said, most of her actions are founded in self-interest; some of them enlightened, some of them rather rapacious. Altruism? To some degree, such as the Marshall plan. But not very common, just as it isn’t very common with any country.

Americans can be bad-guys; people that are anti-American can be good guys. Quel surprise.

That said, yes, there is a sense of American Exceptionalism or the ’shining city on the hill’ as Reagan memorably (re)phrased it in Americans’ minds and in my mind that’s going to color American views. I can see you being very annoyed by that; I can see Australians, Britons, Canadians, and many others being quite annoyed. Fair enough.

I’m sorry you have to resort to sarcasm in our discussion, especially over such a sad incident. And if you want to talk about walking around points, well, you did just that.

Anyway, I won’t further discuss the matter here; I’ll repost to Politik if there are any further responses.

-wolfe

I am weary of all this stating the obvious only to have have to debate it with you as well.

It’s restored my respect for you, now that I better understand your position.

You did say somewhere there would be no lost respect to be restored. Anyway.

I should have known better then to debate politics with an American. It’s a lose, lose situation.

Best regards.

“P. S.” (derogatory quote) I think the people of the island of Granada were grateful to the US as well. And the student hostages.