Typical. Libs force the military to accept the difficult proposition of sending women into war and then use it against the military when the inevitable starts happening.

Which is it? Are women equal to men and capable of pulling their weight on the battlefield, or are they poor, defenseless waifs who require special protection from people on their own side?

. . .At the front you need people who are effective and who can contribute to the effectiveness of the force, you don't need a bunch of drama queens and sob sisters weighing you down. You need people who are capable of playing on the team, not people who are always busy being victims.

I thought I'd heard everything. Clearly, I was wrong.

I assume, then, that you'd argue that the military should consider the rape of an American female soldier by an American male soldier just one of the hazards of war -- that she should just suck it up (so to speak) and accept being brutalized by her comrades-in-arms.

I must assume, as well, that you consider rape just "punishment" for a woman having the temerity to think she can be of service to her country as a soldier -- and who is willing to give her life in that service, as a young female American pilot did quite recently. Is this, I wonder, because you consider the proper venue for women to be the kitchen and bedroom, and that, if called upon for bedroom duty by any insistent male, her proper response ought to be compliance?

I have often been disgusted by posts here at PA -- by the hypocricy, the heartlessness, and the lengths to which some will travel in order to support regressive and inhumane points of view. I have rarely, however, been as disgusted as I am with the suggestion that if a woman enlists in the U.S. armed forces, she has no right to expect to be treated as a soldier like other soldiers, with the same dignity and respect, and no right to expect not to be raped.

There are some very wicked ideas floating around this country. We've just witnessed one of them proudly acclaimed.

SLL