OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Natalie Baillie:

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
if a chick has the balls and motivation to hack it, then more power to her, but don't lower the bar for anyone.

To get back to the point - Agreed!  I am a feminist and a pacifist so my personal opinion is a little complicated but equality should be equal in all ways.

Yeah, we get off topic at times dont we.  

But I agree with ya in that I dont have a big problem with women in combat roles.  I'm not crazy about men and women mixing in the same units though.  I was in the Navy, and today men and women serve together on the same ships.  I've talked with many of my Navy buddies and, while they do go by the rules, they say it has caused some difficulties.

But in Israel, the IDF has a lot of women serving in combat roles and it works there.  

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:

Originally Posted by Natalie Baillie:

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
if a chick has the balls and motivation to hack it, then more power to her, but don't lower the bar for anyone.

To get back to the point - Agreed!  I am a feminist and a pacifist so my personal opinion is a little complicated but equality should be equal in all ways.

Yeah, we get off topic at times dont we.  

But I agree with ya in that I dont have a big problem with women in combat roles.  I'm not crazy about men and women mixing in the same units though.  I was in the Navy, and today men and women serve together on the same ships.  I've talked with many of my Navy buddies and, while they do go by the rules, they say it has caused some difficulties.

But in Israel, the IDF has a lot of women serving in combat roles and it works there.  

  But in Israel, the IDF has a lot of women serving in combat roles and it works there.  


This is a very valid point and one that none of us picked up on before. Also there is the case of the teenager in France who led the army against the English.

IMO women are far stronger than men in general. Obviously I don't mean physical strength but emotional strength. They deal with emotion so much better than most men ever will. In fact hetrosexual men are prolly the weakest as we tend to bottle our emotions up and never talk about what is bothering us as we fear looking soft.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:

Originally Posted by Mary Kirkpatrick:

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:

Originally Posted by Mary Kirkpatrick:
Of course, I already feel that we SHOULD NOT be in the war that we're in...but that's another whole argument!

afghanistan?

Yes

so just curious, not to get off on a wild tangent, but would have been your answer following 9/11?

It still would have been NOT to go into war.  I don't believe that war EVER solves problems...it just creates more.  Not to mention the families and people that it effects by them being away from their homes and their families.  Could 9/11 have been prevented???  Possibly.... but perhaps it was just a "reminder" to us to be diligent in our security (which we hadn't been).  This could have happened anywhere....what if it had happened in a small town in the midwest or in Washington, DC?  

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Mary Kirkpatrick:

It still would have been NOT to go into war.  I don't believe that war EVER solves problems...it just creates more.  Not to mention the families and people that it effects by them being away from their homes and their families.  Could 9/11 have been prevented???  Possibly.... but perhaps it was just a "reminder" to us to be diligent in our security (which we hadn't been).  This could have happened anywhere....what if it had happened in a small town in the midwest or in Washington, DC?  

It almost did.  

But you still haven't said what we should have done AFTER 9-11 happened.  See, thats the thing we always get when someone criticizes us.  They say "you bloodthirsty arrogant Americans shouldn't have gone to war..."

But they never say what we should have done once the attacks came.  And you know as well as everyone else...that ignoring 9-11 wasn't an option.

So if we shouldnt have gone to war...what should we have done?

OFFLINE

actually, we didn't go to war with the taliban and al qaeda. an act of war was perpetuated on us. perhaps we should've stayed out of WWII following pearl harbor as well.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
actually, we didn't go to war with the taliban and al qaeda. an act of war was perpetuated on us. perhaps we should've stayed out of WWII following pearl harbor as well.

Sorry to nit pick Dod but 9/11 was a terrorist attack not an act of war.

Also the American people didn't want to get involved in what they considered a European War. The U.S Govt never declared war on Germany - Germany declared war on you after Pearl Harbour.

Now the U.S Govt was secretly helping the British insofar as the Atlantic convoy's went, and there is no doubt that without that help we would have been **** but without Hitler declaring war on the U.S who knows if you would have joined the war in Europe or only have fought Japan?

Personally I would like to think that you would have joined the European war but we will never know for sure.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by David Macleod:

Sorry to nit pick Dod but 9/11 was a terrorist attack not an act of war.  

i would disagree. the taliban knew where OBL stood. they knew he'd already attacked american embassies, and they knew he declared jihad against america. they were also told to give him up following the murder of 3000 innocent men, women and children, and they declined. so other than semantics, is there REALLY a difference? in today's world, i just don't think we have the luxury of saying an attack only counts if its officially sanctioned by a government, particularly when a terrorist organization and a foreign government are so closely tied together.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:

Originally Posted by Mary Kirkpatrick:

It still would have been NOT to go into war.  I don't believe that war EVER solves problems...it just creates more.  Not to mention the families and people that it effects by them being away from their homes and their families.  Could 9/11 have been prevented???  Possibly.... but perhaps it was just a "reminder" to us to be diligent in our security (which we hadn't been).  This could have happened anywhere....what if it had happened in a small town in the midwest or in Washington, DC?  

It almost did.  

But you still haven't said what we should have done AFTER 9-11 happened.  See, thats the thing we always get when someone criticizes us.  They say "you bloodthirsty arrogant Americans shouldn't have gone to war..."

But they never say what we should have done once the attacks came.  And you know as well as everyone else...that ignoring 9-11 wasn't an option.

So if we shouldnt have gone to war...what should we have done?

I know that people don't want to hear this...but we should have taken a "wait and see" attitude... to see what became of all of this.  Remember...the whole world looks to see what the United States of America does.  Yes...I was as angry as anyone one....and I had  friends who lived through that -- one, in fact, it took her 6 hours to get home...on foot...since all transportation was shut down.  I think we were "too qu ick" to just head off to war.....who knows if we even got the "right" people!

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Mary Kirkpatrick:

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:

Originally Posted by Mary Kirkpatrick:

It still would have been NOT to go into war.  I don't believe that war EVER solves problems...it just creates more.  Not to mention the families and people that it effects by them being away from their homes and their families.  Could 9/11 have been prevented???  Possibly.... but perhaps it was just a "reminder" to us to be diligent in our security (which we hadn't been).  This could have happened anywhere....what if it had happened in a small town in the midwest or in Washington, DC?  

It almost did.  

But you still haven't said what we should have done AFTER 9-11 happened.  See, thats the thing we always get when someone criticizes us.  They say "you bloodthirsty arrogant Americans shouldn't have gone to war..."

But they never say what we should have done once the attacks came.  And you know as well as everyone else...that ignoring 9-11 wasn't an option.

So if we shouldnt have gone to war...what should we have done?

I know that people don't want to hear this...but we should have taken a "wait and see" attitude... to see what became of all of this.  Remember...the whole world looks to see what the United States of America does.  Yes...I was as angry as anyone one....and I had  friends who lived through that -- one, in fact, it took her 6 hours to get home...on foot...since all transportation was shut down.  I think we were "too qu ick" to just head off to war.....who knows if we even got the "right" people!

but wait to see what? if OBL would change his mind about america and give himself up? to see if they were planning another attack? and this isn't a completely smart-assed post. what did we need to wait and see?  they had already attacked our embassies, a u.s. warship, and the world trade center twice in a decade. i just don't see what there was to wait and see for.