Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    It'll never happen.  Personally, if I was there, I wouldn't want to
    rely on the opposite sex to cover my backside.  But I understand what
    you're saying... and it will probably drawn some fire from the feminist
    noters that go to war in notes conferences on a regular basis.
    

    Well, it really is a form of discrimination isn't it?  Appropriate IF
    you accept the role as the male as the protector of woman and children.
    Maybe not appropriate if you don't consider the male as the primary
    protector.  If I were a woman I might consider it a pretty good deal.
    The way the system is currently set up the men 'get to' risk their
    lives in this type of situation disproportionately.  Any comments
    women?   Jeff
    

    sorry, I'm no glass chewer, can't oblige there!
    
    I have no argument with the statement that it ain't fair that the women
    get to go home (assuming they do, which is not at all clear).  I have
    problems with the freedom that journalists (sic) have to come and go,
    including interviewing hostages, too!  It's a lot like ambulance
    chasing.  How does Dan Rather justify it?
    
    But the kids, now that's another story.  Would you require that minor
    children be made to stay as hostages?
    
    <insert sardonic tone here> .1 doesn't want to rely on women to cover
    _his_ backside?  No problem there either!  <back to serious> but remember
    that the LAW even now forbids women from joining a combat outfit,
    reality notwithstanding, and that feminists neither made nor agree with
    that law.
    
    But think again, guys, if you think women and even children are not
    wounded and killed in wars.  I won't even bother to list instances; if
    you can't think of any yourself, you're hopeless...

    Why are men always the combatants?
    
    Maybe because men are the ones who start the wars and get some sort of
    psychic reward from proving how brave they are defending whatever they
    hold dear.
    
    Really, though, anyone who thinks men are the only combatants doesn't
    know much about history.
    
    Karen

    Inasmuch as dying for a cause is desireable, yeah, I've met women who
    wanted to do it.  IF men are going into combat, THEN women should also. 
    Inasmuch as dying is undesireable, yeah, I've met women who didn't want
    to do it.  (Consider yourself to have now met a man who didn't want to,
    either.) 
    
    You make it sound like being a hostage is an honorable undertaking
    which only men are brave enough to undergo.  There are plenty of cases
    where women are prisoners instead - you might remember the recent
    massacre in Montreal, in which the men in the group were allowed to
    leave before the women were killed - but the point is that being a
    hostage is not generally one's own choice. 
    
    Is it wrong for the women and children to be released?  No.
    
    Is it wrong for the men to remain hostages?  Yes.
    
    Would I insist on staying with the other hostages given a choice?  What
    possible good would that do?
    
    BTW, can anyone think of a case in which a woman was the one taking
    hostages?
    
    Ray

    re .0, how about passing the ERA first?
    
    Also, as Karen (?) said, how many of the wars since 1776 have been
    *started* by women?  
    
    Personally, I do not believe it is morally right to draft either men or
    women.  My ideal is to have neither men or women fighting wars, not
    both.  I think the effort should be made in stopping men from fighting
    wars, not in making women join in.
    
    I, also, don't think the U.S. should be sending any soldiers to the
    middle east.
    
    In closing, it should be obvious to you, that having to fight, and
    having to be the ones to stay on the sinking ship, and not be released
    as hostages, etc., is the price men have to pay for being the ones to
    run the world for so long.
    
    Lorna
    

There are indeed a significant number of women in the armed forces being
sent to the mideast.  This is proving rather upsetting to the Saudi Arabians,
it would appear - women are being asked to keep their heads covered, etc.

Anyway, I didn't read tales of male hostages being raped by Iraqi soldiers...

				Steve

    Hussein made the decision to free the women and children hostages
    *after* his broadcast.  Given that they haven't gone anywhere yet, it
    looks like he's playing to the media.  From reports on the radio this
    morning, the "official agencies" can't decide what is required to
    obtain exit visas.  Until these people obtain the exit visas, they're
    not going anywhere.
    
    NPR also interviewed some female soldiers.  They are ready and willing
    to defend, but due to that particular country's view of women, they
    have been relegated to riding shotgun on the jeeps.
    
    What's it going to take to resolve this situation?  It will be
    interesting to see what will happen with the diplomatic negotiations.
    
    
    Judi
    

    I'm a big fan of the ERA, in part so that laws like "women can't serve
    in combat" would be unconstitutional. The part I'm responding to is the
    uniform tendency for feminists to protest ONLY when it forwards the
    interests of women. Denying women leadership roles in the military is
    an offense. Denying them the danger of combat is a virtue.
    
    I'm amazed at the argument that women-as-bystanders are combatants.
    What is the ratio of male-to-female deaths in the Civil War, World
    Wars, and Viet Nam? Twenty-to-one? Fifty-to-one? Get real.
    
    The "men start the wars, so they should die in the wars" argument is
    just a bit less rank. The starters-be-fighters rule would prescribe
    that all combat positions be filled by men aged fifty or over, with
    high military position and/or great wealth. THAT rule, implemented,
    would halt war forever, wouldn't it. We spend our 18-year-old males
    because they're  willing to go. They're willing to go because men are
    supposed to be brave and self-sacrificing (particularly in front of
    *women*).
    
    I sincerely believe that feminism among women is great for men, because
    the feminist desire for access to male roles relieves the pressure for
    men to fulfill those roles. The provider role is the main
    case-in-point. It's time for recognition that the combat role is a real
    killer. Women are capable of 90% of combat roles. If the military wants
    to apply an upperbody-strength criterion, that's fine by me, but don't
    base proximity to death on *gender*.
    
    On a different topic, what would happen to miltarism if women were
    combatants? I tend to think: not much. Our "vital national interests"
    (e.g. making the world safe for cheap gasoline) would still be
    threatened, and I think that the Indira Ghandi's are as willing to go
    to war as the Bush's and Hussein's.
    
    - Hoyt

�    in combat" would be unconstitutional. The part I'm responding to is the
�    uniform tendency for feminists to protest ONLY when it forwards the
�    interests of women. Denying women leadership roles in the military is
    
    You and me obviously know different feminists.  I can tell you that
    your "uniform" adjective is wrong, as already pointed out by other
    replies about women in the military. 
    
    You still haven't said what "hostages" have to do with "combat duty".
    
    BTW, I agree with you that war would not stop just because women got
    combat duty.
    
    Ray

    re. .9 (Hoyt) -- Your comment
    
    > The starters-be-fighters rule would prescribe
    > that all combat positions be filled by men aged fifty or over, with
    > high military position and/or great wealth. THAT rule, implemented,
    > would halt war forever, wouldn't it.
    
    is precisely what I've been proposing since my antiwar protest days
    back in the late '60s and early '70s.  My proposal for ending the
    current contretemps in the Mideast (alluded to in the title of my
    previous entry in this string) is to put Bush and Hussein out in the
    middle of the desert by themselves and let them duke it out; may the
    best man win.  But that victory will have nothing to do with world
    affairs or solving the hostage situation or regulating the price of
    oil.  The sole result will be the relief of their belligerant attitudes
    with minimal adverse impact on the rest of us (18-year-old young men,
    glass-chewing feminists, or simply world citizens).
    
    Regardless of how you choose to interpret my earlier comment about men
    starting wars, it's true.  Men start wars.  We don't have enough
    experience with women in positions of power to say whether women also
    start wars.  To me it doesn't matter; I hate wars and don't want anyone
    to die in one.  And that applies just as much to my son as it does to
    my daughter.
    
    Karen 

    Do women in the Israeli army, for example, engage in combat, or are they 
    also restricted?  Does anyone know of a country that does not prohibit 
    women from engaging in active combat?
    
    Why is it that women are prohibited from combat in the U.S. services?
    
    
    Judi
    
    

    
    
    
    
    
    As I understand it, Israeli women are fully trained for combat. They
    are prohibited from actually fighting, however, for the reason that
    their enemies grow suddenly more courageous when fighting women, esp.
    they are much less likely to surrender.
    
    Tha Amazons of myth come to mind. There are the Valkyries. Women helped
    storm the Bastille. There aren't many examples of fighting females.
    
    To the best of my (limited) knowledge, U.S. military women are
    prohibited from cambat because it's not appropriate; i.e. not for any
    non-patronizing reason.
    
    Re: possibility of women as peace-mongers
    
    I agree that we don't have enough experience with women as national
    leaders. I'm increasingly discouraged about whether we ever will do so.
    As Ms. Bhutto (sp?) has established, it's hard to hold power when you
    affront a male military hierarchy. Ditto in the Phillipines. Ms. Ghandi
    and Ms. Thatcher are not encouraging. Who was that woman whom Big Ron
    had representing us in the UN, who made the critical distinction
    between dictatorship (ours) and totalitarianism (theirs)?
    
    The best sign is the significant and increasing "gender gap." The
    female tilt is in the direction I favor. I guess that means the
    disproportionate slaughter of males favors my political hopes?!
    
    - Hoyt

The limitation on women in combat is largely artificial, and a result of
our society's long-time patronizing attitude toward women.  In the
Panama invasion, the military turned itself upside down to deny that women
had actually been involved in combat, though it was apparent that some were.
This was most unfair to those women who were then denied the rewards given
to their fellow male soldiers.

I suspect that the barrier of women in combat will erode slowly over the
forthcoming years, largely by necessity.  The US military just can't attract
the number of men it needs, and women are willing and able to take up the
slack.  This week's Newsweek even has an Army ad aimed directly at women,
trying to get them to join.  It of course sidesteps the issue of what
jobs are barred to women, but it is clear that women are now and will
increasingly be an important part of our armed forces.

				Steve

    
    Regarding .14
    
    Yes it is true that women engaged in combat during Panama.
    However,  there is a BIG difference between going up against
    a well-seasoned heavily armed IRAQI armor brigade and fighting  
    three lightly armed Panamanian soldiers guarding a DOG POUND.
    
    Keith

�    Yes it is true that women engaged in combat during Panama.
�    However,  there is a BIG difference between going up against
�    a well-seasoned heavily armed IRAQI armor brigade and fighting  
�    three lightly armed Panamanian soldiers guarding a DOG POUND.
    
    Oh, so you mean that the male soldiers in Panama didn't deserve the
    rewards they got?
    
    Ray

    Actually, women being excluded from combat positions in modern warfare
    keeps them only slightly safer than the troops on the front lines.  
    Women are filling many of the most important combat support and combat
    service support positions.
    
    Combat support includes things like artillery and anti-air batteries. 
    Well, folks, these are prime targets for HEAVY artillery and air
    strikes.  If a war drags on, the ground troops (i.e combat positions) 
    definitely take the major casualties.  In the first couple of weeks
    though I'd rather be infantry than a gunner in an MLRS battery.
    
    A stated somewhere earlier, the restriction keeping women out of combat
    positions is somewhat artificial.  Well, the distinction between combat
    and combat support is largely artificial too.
    
    In any case, male or female, combat or combat support, I wouldn't want
    to be there!
    
    -max
    

    	RE: .0  Hoyt

    	> Anybody concerned about the treatment of *men* in Iraq/Kuwait? We're
    	> gonna let the girls and the kiddies go. 

    	A lot of men have already been released (or have escaped) from Kuwait
    	and/or Iraq.  Did you protest that these men were released while
    	babies and small children were still help captive??  Why not?

    	You aren't slamming these men now for having left.  Why not?

    	> Just imagine: "Up yours, you patronizing pig, I'm *just* as 
    	> qualified to serve as a shield and hostage as any *male* and I'm 
    	> demand my right to stay." There must be some feminist capturees 
    	> making that statement, correct? 

    	Did you see the Austrians demanding to stay in Iraq when they were
    	released (saying, "We're *just* as qualified to serve as a shield
    	and hostage as any *Americans, British, Australians, Japanese, etc.*
    	and we DEMAND our right to stay")?

    	What's wrong with those Austrians, huh?  Why aren't you slamming
    	them for being willing to leave Iraq, too?

    	Why do you only slam feminists for the fact that women are willing
    	to be released as hostages, but don't slam all the men from various
    	countries who have already been released?
    
    	What's the story here?

    Canada has two CF-18 (Canadian version of the F-18) fighter pilots who
    are female.  They are touted as being the only females in the world who
    are trained and on duty to fly combat missions fighter planes.
    
    I'll paraphrase a quote from one of them who responded when asked about
    women in the armed forces; "Anyone who thinks it's a priviledge to be
    flying at Mach 2 with a Sidewinder missile on their tail has warped
    sense of reality."
    
    Kris

    
    	RE: .20  Mike Z.
    
    	Sorry, but the word fits.
    
    	I'd still like to hear the basenote author explain his reasons for
    	jumping all over feminists because (mostly) wives are willing to
    	leave Iraq with their children.
    
    	Hoyt, would you demand to stay in Iraq if Saddam Hussein found some
    	reason to let you go?
    

    
    	My questions stand (as is) to the basenote author.
    

As I said before, I'd hate to rely on the opposite sex when it came to
fighting.  However, with the equal rights crap that many women keep shouting at
us all, I think they should serve the armed forces by also being sent into
combat.  It really is discrimination, by virtue of sex, to choose my son over
someone's daughter.  I just don't believe women can hold up to war, as a whole.
Women have many virtues, but I don't believe that fighting is one of them.

Males are better suited for fighting.  That's not a put-down for women.  Some
could even call it a compliment.  Men are better fighters physically.  We're
bigger, faster, and stronger.  That's why men fight, because they can.

It's the same with sports, really.  Women can't compete with men, period.  The
record books prove that.  I'm a black belt and a boxer.  I've seen many women
receive a black belt, but NONE that could compete with a male black belt that
had truly earned his rank.

Imagine this....
	A women's team in the NFL.
	Women playing against a professional major league baseball team.
	A woman wrestler taking on Hulk Hogan.
	A tough feminist woman training to take on Mike Tyson.

					these things are laughable!

Now, imagine this...
	
	A male platoon of marines going up against a platoon of women.  

					kind of crazy, huh?

Now don't give me that, hey... women would be fighting WITH men bunk.  What I
have pointed out is the obvious... that they can't compete with men, so why put
them among the ranks of men in combat and weaken your army???

But as I said, women want equality, so give'em a gun and send them out there. 
Maybe feminists will realize that women and men are not created equal after
all.

-db

    re:  .21
    
    >>>    Canada has two CF-18 (Canadian version of the F-18) fighter pilots who
    are female.  They are touted as being the only females in the world who
    are trained and on duty to fly combat missions fighter planes.
    
    I believe that the Air Force sends some female grads to pilot training
    school, although they won't fly in combat.  I'll confirm this.
    
    -db
    
    It's a waste to train'em for combat and never send them to combat. 
    It's also laughable to see female drill instructors, standing 5'4" and
    weighing 120lbs, standing in front of a 6'2" male soldier and giving
    him holy ____ for the way he is performing his training when she
    has never, (and will never), face a combat situation.
    

    The note that stated "men start wars so they should fight them" or
    something like that is silly.

    If women ever do get elected into leading positions, and are forced to
    make tough decisions, they...

    nevermind.  That's notes to ridiculous to respond to.

    -db

    
    
    
    
    Now that the women and children have started leaving Iraq, you may have
    noted that some women *did* choose to stay behind with their husbands. 
    However, I strongly believe that most of the women who did leave were
    urged to do so by their husbands.
    
    It's all very well to say "women are just as qualified to be hostages
    as men" - but put yourselves in the same position.  Would any of you say
    to your wives/daughters "If I've got to stay here and face possible 
    death, you're staying here with me - I wouldn't want you getting a better
    deal than me".
    
    I think not.
    
    Sam
    

    	If I were in combat, I wouldn't want to fight next to someone who
    	would judge my ability based on the sex organs beneath my uniform.
    	Someone like that would get us both killed, most likely.

    	Unfortunately, our society trains some/many/most men to believe so 
    	deeply in women's inferiority that this is the biggest danger that 
    	faces units that might otherwise allow women in combat positions.

    	If we get rid of the prejudice, then qualified men and women could
    	fight (leaving unqualified men and women at home.)

    
    	RE: .30  Mike Z.
    
    	> Do you support one set of physical tests for both men and women?
    
    	Sure, although they need to be changed so that the abilities of
    	both sexes can be used to full advantage.
    
    	Brute strength in a technological world doesn't count for everything.
    

    
    	RE: .32  Mike Z.
    
    	> What human characteristics do you think play the biggest part
    	> for determining success in combat situations?
    
    	Courage, determination, precision in firing weapons among others.
    
    	Brute strength isn't the biggest factor unless you plan to arm
    	wrestle other Armies.  
    
    	We lost a war in Southeast Asia against an Army of much smaller
    	men with less average strength than ours had, after all.
    

    	>> Do you support one set of physical tests for both men and women?
    
       >>>	Sure, although they need to be changed so that the abilities of
       >>>	both sexes can be used to full advantage.
    
    
    At the Air Force Academy, since they've taken in women, the confidence
    course is "optional" and for fighting with pugil sticks, they use to
    use metal ones with padding.... now they're plastic so that the women
    can swing them.  Just two examples.
    
    >>>    	Brute strength in a technological world doesn't count for
    everything.
    
    Fighting on the ground without that brute strength can cost one their
    life, and perhaps the lives of others.
    
    
    

     
    >>>    	Courage, determination, precision in firing weapons among
    others.
    
    That's exactly why women don't measure up to combat.  Thank you.
    
    >>>    	Brute strength isn't the biggest factor unless you plan to arm
    	wrestle other Armies.  
    
    But it is a factor not to be ignored, unless you expect to play a good
    game of chess with the enemy.
    
    >>>    	We lost a war in Southeast Asia against an Army of much smaller
    	men with less average strength than ours had, after all.
    
    Hardly a war.  It was a conflict, and a bad one.  For a war to be
    fought and won, it must be decided that it's to be won at any cost.
    
    
    
    

    
    
    Ahem
    
>>    >>>    	Courage, determination, precision in firing weapons among
>>    others.
    
>>    That's exactly why women don't measure up to combat.  Thank you.
  
    What makes you say women don't have courage and determination (that is
    how I read your comment).  As for precision in firing weapons, I have
    only shot a few times but each time have shot better than the men
    around me.  I have no training (yet).  A friend of mine is in the
    Australian Army Reserves.  The girls in his unit consistently win all
    the shooting medals.
    Women haven't  traditionally been combatants.  How do you know how they
    might turn out?  (I must add here that I don't agree with the comment
    that if women were in charge there wouldn't be any wars).
    
    
    >> >>>    	Brute strength isn't the biggest factor unless you plan to arm
    >>	wrestle other Armies.  
    
    >> But it is a factor not to be ignored, unless you expect to play a good
    >> game of chess with the enemy.
    
    It wasn't ignored, yes men are usually stronger than women but that
    doesn't stop women from been able to perform vital roles in combat. 
    You just have to place them "strategically".  
    
    >> >>>    	We lost a war in Southeast Asia against an Army of much smaller
    >>	men with less average strength than ours had, after all.
    
    >> Hardly a war.  It was a conflict, and a bad one.  For a war to be
    >> fought and won, it must be decided that it's to be won at any cost.
    
    Funny, I always thought the Vietnam was a war.  What is your definition
    of war?  A conflict that it has been decided must be won at any cost? 
    In that case WWI and II weren't wars.  Someone surrendered, they
    decided that it WOULDN'T be won at any cost.
    
    		Holly
    
                           
    

    Sorry, but I find it a little odd that men's or women's suitability as
    soldiers is viewed as a matter of honour. 
    Seriously, should we men be proud because traditionally we happened to
    be the heroic defenders of our countries? Well, if you ask me, I
    wouldn't move a finger because "my country" or "Western interests" are
    in danger, not to speak risk my life. What should we die for? Just for
    the interests of a few rotten and corrupt clowns that happen to hold
    world politics in their hands? No, thank you. I'll rather crawl on my
    knees whining for forgiveness every time rather than wasting my life
    heroically.
    If you have guys that feel the urge to be professional soldiers, hell,
    let them do the job and get what they deserve, no matter if men or
    women. It doesn't matter how smart or skillful or well-trained you are
    when you get crushed by a tank, blown into pieces by a bomb, blazed
    away by a machine gun or simply atomized by a nuclear weapon. War is
    not heroic, and never will be. My father was in world war II, and the
    only thing he cared for was for his own survival, he'd done amazing
    things to the German flag anytime if told it would help him to get out
    of that mess without any harm.
    So don't get involved, no matter if male or female. What do you prove
    by firing a gun? Every backward human can be good at shooting and
    killing, I don't think it constitues a merit to anyone's sex to behave
    like a drilled dog, and that's what soldiers are supposed to do.
    I don't care a damn if people think I lack "courage" or "manhood", I am
    convinced that I would never change the course of history by being
    cannon fodder. I keep my courage for my personal life, and I will never
    be stupid enough to let other people determine when I should get
    killed.
    In my eyes, women and men that refuse to fight are the better ones. 
    As a woman, I couldn't care less for my suitability as sacrificial lamb
    for some benighted general's plan. This isn't what honour shoud be
    about.
    Just an opinion
    ...Paul
    

    	How many of you were in Vietnam during the conflict? Especially
    women. How many women here have military service. How many have combat
    training??
    	Now, how many people in this discussion have ever been in a serious
    physical fight?? Ever kill anyone in combat?? Ever kill anyone outside
    of combat?? Ever kill an animal other than a bug??
    	How many women in here have ever had to drop their clothes in front
    of strangers to go to the bathroom? How many people have ever had to
    urinate or defecate in their clothes and stay in it for 5-8 hours or
    even a day?? Think you could hold it for three or four days?
        
    	Too many self proclaimed experts on Vietnam couldn't find it on a
    map, let alone tell what it's like. I've never seen a woman locked in
    hand to hand to the death so I can't make a value judgement on ability,
    but my opinion is that against a man of equal size, they'd lose 98% of
    the time. 
    
    	As to shooting. Competitive shooting is a controlled way of firing
    a gun. You have X amount of ammo and X number of targets. You never
    have less ammo than targets. Your targets don't hide in trees, behind
    trees, and most important....THEY DON"T SHOOT BACK!!!!! You can't ever
    begin to compare combat and range shooting. A target is not another
    human, hell bent on blowing your brains out. Geeezzz. 
    
    	Cambat is not some theoretical discussion. If you ain't done it,
    how can you make a judgement?  I'd rather be with men in combat.
    
    Ken...
    
    Vietnam ..'68, '69, '70, '71, '72.

    
    	In any situation, I'd rather be with someone who does not pre-judge
    	someone's ability on the sex organs beneath their clothes.
    
    	Someone who deeply believes that women are inferior in combat is
    	very likely to get killed next to a woman (and get the woman killed
    	as well.)
    
    	This is the main reason why women aren't allowed in combat - the
    	prejudice of others.
    

    
    	By the way, I've been seriously injured in "hand to hand" combat
    	- I was unarmed.
    
    	If I'd had a weapon, I'd have been in a far better position to
    	defend myself.  The size of my attacker wouldn't have been as
    	much of a factor as it was.
    
    	Size of the soldiers didn't keep the Japanese from being a terrible
    	threat in WWII - in the end, we relied on a nuclear air strike to
    	keep many more Americans and Japanese from being killed in combat
    	on the ground.
    
    	If all it took were bigger, stronger soldiers, Japan never would
    	have been a threat in the first place.

    
    	Let's hope you didn't put any money on the U.S. (with its stronger
    	soldiers) to win in Viet Nam.
    
    	The other side's weapons were almost as good as ours.
    

    It's interesting how men in this string are arguing against both ends. 
    The basenoter asks why men are ALWAYS the combatants, yet the later
    replies are arguing why women SHOULDN'T be combatants.  Fellows,
    please, what is it you want?
    
    Not that I think women should just lie down and give it to you (wicked
    8-) there), but you're arguing both ends against the middle.
    
    I'm also quite curious about why there's so much heat being exuded in 
    this discussion -- a serious question.  Is there some major change in
    the making that has men both resentful that women aren't dying on
    battlefields in serious numbers and yet fearful that today's women will 
    be allowed to invade this male-dominated ground?
    
    Karen

    Aint no fear about it KAren.  If women want to go into combat and play
    GI Joette, go for it.  BUT DAMMIT, dont expect preferencial treatment!
    I was in the military, the treatment for women boots and male boots
    were two entirely different animals.  that is wrong.
    
    RE: Conlon
    
    you constantly remind me that I cannot possible know what it is like to
    be an opressed women etc etc blah blah.... well, its my turn, you
    werent in the military, you didnt serve during a war, so how do YOU
    know what it is like?  hmm?  books?  yea, thats the ticket.
    
    FYI;  I was in the Gulf in 81 when this poop was just starting, we were
    escort vessels only.  this "war" is nothing new, its just that the heat
    has been turned up and the Americans have somehow gotten more involved.
    
    

    	RE: .43  Karen

    	Precisely!!!

    	The whole point is that it's a Catch-22 for feminists and women,
    	in general.

    	We are damned if we don't DEMAND to be drafted and forced to fight
    	in combat (we're told that we only fight for the equality issues
    	that suit us, and we're called hypocrites.)

    	We are also damned if we DO DEMAND to be drafted and/or forced (or
    	even ALLOWED) into combat (we're told that we're asking for unfair
    	changes in standards when we bring up that it would be necessary
    	to adjust them for our body types - we're sometimes called hypocrites
    	for this, too.)

    	The main thing, though, is that it seems to be a chance to rail on
    	about how inferior some people regard women in certain situations
    	(as if the idea of courage is completely foreign to us.)

    	When my son was 4 years old, I risked my life to save his by stepping
    	in the path of a speeding car (without seeing how close it was to
    	him) to pull him out of the way.  Witnesses to what happened were
    	very clear in their minds that he would have been killed if I hadn't
    	found the courage to go get him without wasting time to see how
    	close the car was.  If it had been just a bit closer, we both would
    	have been killed together.

    	I'm sure my son was glad that his Mother was the one he needed to
    	count on to save his life in this situation (even though I'm "only"
    	a woman and not supposed to have courage.)

    
    	RE: .44 Al
    
    	Thanks for the demonstration of my second point while I was writing
    	it.
    
    	Nice timing!
    

    re .42 and others
    	>Let's hope you didn't put any money on the U.S. (with its stronger
    	>soldiers) to win in Viet Nam.
    
    	It wasn't the American Soldier that lost Vietnam.  Vietnam was
    	lost when Greald Ford reniged on Americas promise to return if
        peace agreement didn't hold up.  The real shame that America
        has to face from Vietnam is the MILLIONS who died in Vietnam,
        Cambodia, and Laos after we turned our backs on them.  It's no
        wonder we have trouble finding Allies who will stand up with
        us these days.  It's more dangerous being America's allie than
        America's enemy.
    
        fred() who wasn't there and didn't go because he could set the
               b.s. games being played.

    
    	RE: .47  Mike Z.
    
    	You aren't the only noter here, Mike, so don't be surprised when
    	I respond to opinions other than yours, ok?
    
    	As for Al, his note appeared while I was writing mine, and he did
    	prove my other point.
    

    
    	RE: .50  Mike Z.
    
    	Prove it.
    

    	By the way, what good does anyone think it would do to say, "Sure,
    	women should go into combat" while at the same time expressing a
    	deeply felt belief that women's size and strength would make us
    	inferior in this role?  Men and women would die needlessly.

    	Another point - why is it considered "preferential treatment" to
    	ask that combat standards be adjusted to fit women's bodies (when
    	they are still ADJUSTED now for men's bodies, for the most part)?

    	If the standards were set for the bodies of gorillas, only the
    	most superior men (or most gorillas) would qualify, but we'd
    	have a very tiny Army.

    	If our society wants many women in combat roles, they will need
    	to adjust the standards to fit the average woman's body (just as
    	the standards are set now for the average man's body.)

    	If they aren't willing to change the standards, then no one should
    	complain that feminists aren't demanding to be forced into combat.
    	

    re: conlon
    I proved nothing.  If you (women in general) are just as good (or by
    your standards sue, better) than men, then why should the standards be
    chamged?  why should women get easier terms than men?  is that
    "equality"?  maybe per your standards Sue, but not by mine.  If women
    want to be treated equally, then do the SAME DAMN THING.
    
    

    
    	RE: .53  Al
    
    	"THE SAME DAMN THING" should be defined as "having standards
    	adjusted to our bodies" (just as the standards have always been
    	adjusted to men's bodies.)
    
    	Why should men have the preferential treatment of having standards
    	adjusted to them if the military is going to refuse to give women
    	the same treatment?
    
    	Why do you want to give men this unfair advantage?
    

    Suzanne,
    
    one reason why I think that the standards should be adjusted to
    men's bodies is that the solidiers that our troups will be
    fighting are other men. Their standards won't be adjusted to
    those of our women.
    
    If women can meet the same standards as men then they should be
    allowed to go into the infantry, with all the hardships in re
    dress and excretion/defecation, and bathing etc etc that the men
    have. Ideally they should be able to share bunks and the head
    on ships with men. 
    
    But there are only a small number of women who meet the male standards
    for infantry. Other women should be allowed to do what ever they
    are capable of by dint of the phyiscial and mental abilities. 
    
    If we are talking about general admission to the service and to
    officers programs *not* infantry and hand to hand combat, then I agree
    that the standards should be adjusted for the differences in women's
    bodies. However, I don't think either sex should get a 'free ride'
    due to sex related physical differences alone.
    
    Bonnie

    RE: .18 CONLON re .0

    This is the MENNOTES conference, in which I raised the issue that
    MEN are always the combatants. Freeing women and children is an act
    of sexism and ageism. I neglected the ageism to focus on the sexism,
    because a conference on MEN necessarily highlights gender issues.
    The behavior of Austrians is entirely irrelevant.

    I'm not interested is slamming feminists. I'd like men to wake up to 
    the fact that we men are routinely subjected to serious hazards, and as a 
    result die in great numbers. Women should be taking on their fair share. 
    Combat, iron-working, test piloting, coal mining, law enforcement, 
    asbestos removal, hazard waste site clean-up, etc: these are all 
    occupations which we men should actively promote for women, until our 
    respective fatality rates converge.

    I don't have any interest in undercutting feminists. In my view, 
    feminists are going to extend the life expectancy of men by fighting 
    for and winning a role in these hazardous professions. I *do* have
    an interest in feminists seeking fairness and equality even when it
    is against the direct interests of women. Feminists continually raise
    the alarm when women are discriminated against. I mightily applaud 
    that. I encourage feminists to shout with outrage when Hussein makes
    his sexist proclamations. It *is* patronizing. It's a silly example, 
    perhaps, since everyone (in the U.S., mostly) wants *all* the hostages 
    freeD, regardless of gender.

    But there are other examples. Combat is one. Veterans receive many
    benefits in our society. The cause of women would be advanced by
    procuring those advantages, even if women's apparent *direct* interest
    is not served. Another example would be fighting for parity in 
    insurance rates: women are beneficiaries of auto insurance company 
    policies, until they become elderly, at which time they receive
    smaller annuities because of their longer life expectancy. Another
    example is human testing of pharmaceuticals. Most subjects are men, and
    men do the bulk of the suffering during these trials. The medicines and
    treatments are also optimized for men, however.

    Feminists will (obviously) make their own decisions about what to 
    protest. I'd like to encourage MEN to do so. Women and children are
    freed. WHAT A CROCK. Women and children to the lifeboats. WHAT A CROCK.
    Women work as retail clerks and office staff while men go to the coal
    mines, the police druggie-roundup detail, and the infantry. WHAT A 
    CROCK.

    - Hoyt

    It occurs to me that women probably WOULD make good combatants. I do
    not have any military experience, but from reading I recall that a
    necessary ingredient for a good fighting force is a sense of teamwork
    and comradeship, a commitment to the group succeeding. At the risk of
    committing a generalization, I'd opine that women are better at this
    than men. There's also the old bit about women having more stamina, and
    bearing up better under physical stress (child-bearing is no picnic).
    They're certainly smaller targets!
    
    But the (sexist) enemy would never surrender.
    
    - Hoyt

    -mike
    
    in general endurance tests, that don't require strength or speed,
    just ability to 'keep on keeping on' women out perform men in
    laboratory situations. 
    
    this is testing a different kind of strenght than that of a marathoner.
    
    Bonnie

    	RE: .56  Hoyt

    	> I'm not interested is slamming feminists. 

    	Good to hear.  It might also be good to look back at your notes
    	to realize that you did just that (whether you meant to or not.)

    	> I'd like men to wake up to the fact that we men are routinely 
    	> subjected to serious hazards, and as a result die in great numbers. 

    	Most men already know this, don't you think?

    	> Women should be taking on their fair share.  Combat, iron-working, 
    	> test piloting, coal mining, law enforcement, asbestos removal, 
    	> hazard waste site clean-up, etc: these are all occupations which we 
    	> men should actively promote for women, until our respective fatality 
    	> rates converge.

    	Well, you're right in assuming that men have more control over
    	keeping women from these occupations than women do, so go ahead
    	and keep suggesting it to men.  Keep in mind that yelling at
    	women for not having won the right to be represented in equal
    	numbers in these occupations is not helpful since it isn't under
    	our control, though.

    	> I *do* have an interest in feminists seeking fairness and equality 
    	> even when it is against the direct interests of women. 

    	No one can take on all the possible fights for equality, so if you
    	find one that is more suited to men's interests, you should fight
    	it yourselves (rather than taking the lazy way out by demanding that 
    	women fight your equality battles, too, as proof of our integrity.)

    	If you think it's sexist and ageist for women and children to be
    	released from Iraq, go on your own protest about it.  It's kinda
    	useless to protest that others did NOT protest for you (when you're
    	the one riled up about it.)

    	> Feminists continually raise the alarm when women are discriminated 
    	> against. I mightily applaud that. I encourage feminists to shout 
    	> with outrage when Hussein makes his sexist proclamations. It *is* 
    	> patronizing. It's a silly example, perhaps, since everyone (in the 
    	> U.S., mostly) wants *all* the hostages freed, regardless of gender.

    	Yes, it's a silly example.

    	Aside from this, though, there's another Catch-22 here.

    	If we don't protest against the special treatment that "traditional"
    	women receive, we're called hypocrites (and we're told that we only
    	want equality when it "suits" us.)  If we DO protest this special
    	treatment, we're told that we don't speak for the interests of
    	traditional women (and that we're hypocrites for claiming to be
    	a "women's" movement while working AGAINST the interests of many
    	traditional women.)

    	> Feminists will (obviously) make their own decisions about what to 
    	> protest. I'd like to encourage MEN to do so.

    	Agreed.  How about finding a way to encourage men that doesn't
    	include bashing feminists?  (Thanks.)

    In Israel, women are commonly trained for combat duty.  However, women
    are not allowed in the front lines.  The reason is that 1)the (probably
    moslem) enemy would be more likely to keep fignting ( and killing and
    dying ) rather than surrender to a female (feminism hasn't come to the
    Moslem religeon yet and we can't expect everyone else to play by 
    *our* rules), and 2) the treatment that a female would likely suffer
    if captured by the enemy.  Russian women commonly fought in the front
    lines during WWII.  Many were captured.  Few survived.  Therefore
    the male comrads of the female soldiers would also be more likely
    to keep fighting and killing and dying rather than allow the female
    to be captured.
    
    As for *men* starting all the wars, I recall a few being started by
    such as Kathrin the Great of Russia, Elizabeth the First of England,
    Victoria of England, Indira Ghandi, and Margrett Thatcher.
    
    fred();

    	RE: .58  Mike Z.

    	Oh, well, if you want to reserve combat duty for only the BEST
    	ATHLETES, then we'll have a very, VERY tiny Army.

    	Soldiers are not typically World Class Athletes, Mike.  The
    	standards are set up for AVERAGE MEN'S BODIES (so that nearly
    	all men of a certain age who aren't ill or disabled can qualify.)

    	That's the whole point - it doesn't take a special athlete to
    	fight in combat, so size and strength are not the biggest
    	factors.

    My godfather used to work at Anapolis.  After females were admitted to
    the Academy, I asked him what type of female student became a
    successful cadet.  His answer was that the females at the top of their
    class either grew up with brothers, was actively involved in team
    sports, excelled at math and/or science, or a combination of the three.
    
    If women were allowed to enter into combat, they need to be trained, as
    any professional soldier would.  If they want to enter the Air Force,
    they would also need to be trained.
    
    Unless and until women are encouraged to develop their abilities and
    are exposed to competitive sports and the sciences, how are they to
    build the foundation to excel in the military, should they choose that
    course?  Yes, there are physical differences between men and women that
    need to be taken into consideration.
    
    It would be interesting to see a comparison of the number of men and
    women in the military over the past decade, after women were admitted
    to places like Anapolis.  Does anyone have such info?
    
    If men take such umbrage at "women and children first", why don't they
    push for more equity in the military, where advancement is based on
    skill and ability, rather than gender?
    
    
    Judi
    

    I'm new at notes files and this is my second try at replying but I have
    a few things to say:
    
    1.  Last week I read that there were several women who refused to leave
    without their husbands - they were all British women.  
    
    2.  In regard to women in Combat.  After serving for four years in the
    military and one tour in Vietnam I have some very strong opinions.  (A)
    Women can be just as ruthless as men.  (B)  When the Israeli Army used
    women in combat back in the Forties the mortality rate jumped off the
    scale and it wasn't the Arabs mortality rate.  The experiment was short
    lived - a couple of months. (C)  Does combat require brute strength?  After
    all an M-16 is a pretty light weapon right?  Right, but the Ammo is very
    heavy and with all the other stuff you can easily get minimums of 80
    pounds!!  That's what I said 80 pounds and that's a minimum in many
    cases.  (D)  Should women be in combat?  NO!  (E)  Should men be in
    combat?  NO?  Sister killing sister is no better than brother killing
    borther.  The answer is not to invent new ways to kill each other. 
    Don't you know that the Machine Gun was invented to end all wars?  It
    was thought to be so brutal that wars would not ever happened.  Ditto
    for the combat airplane, chemical warfare, the aircraft carrier and the
    ultimate - the Atomic bomb.
    
    Women, don't volunteer yourselves, sisters and daughters for combat. 
    Your deaths won't help anymore than the millions of men who have died.
    
    patrick
    

    	RE: .64  Mike Z.

    	.62> standards are set up for AVERAGE MEN'S BODIES (so that nearly
	.62> all men of a certain age who aren't ill or disabled can qualify.)

	> It was only a matter of time before you pulled this sorry old
    	> myth out of the mothballs.

    	Old myth?  You're pretty humorous.  :)

	> The physical standards are not tailored to men, they are
    	> tailored to the weaponry used and the body strengths needed to
    	> operate that weaponry.

    	Who were the weapons designed for (whose average strength??) - and
    	who designed them?

    	These weapons would be a lot more powerful if they'd been designed
    	for gorillas to carry, don't you think?  (Gorillas make most men
    	look like they're lucky to lift a pencil.)  

    	But how practical would it have been to design weapons that only
    	gorillas could carry?  Not very.  So they designed them to be
    	carried by a man of AVERAGE STRENGTH.

    	Thus, the standards were set up for the AVERAGE MEN'S BODIES, and
    	not the average women's bodies.

    	If all people were the same size (women's size,) you can BET the
    	weapons would have been designed for the different "average" size.
    	Again, it would be useless to design weapons to exceed the average
    	body type - it would make for very tiny armies.

    	By the way - 

    	Females lions have smaller bodies with less body strength than
    	males, yet it's the females (working together) who do most of
    	the violent hunting of prey in the wild.

    	The males are strong, but their manes make them too easily visible
    	by prey, so they play very minor roles in large, violent hunts with
    	the pride.

    	If you see documentaries about lions on a hunt, notice that the
    	ones doing the chasing and killing have short hair on their heads.
    	Being smaller and less strong doesn't hold them back a bit from
    	this vigorous endeavor.

    	Male lions have manes to help protect against their biggest enemy
    	- other male lions.  They save their strength to fight each other
    	while the females fight other animals, pretty much.  (I believe 
    	it is also the females who fight off animals whose prey are lion
    	cubs.)

    	Strength isn't everything.

    Mike
    
    That is very common information in almost any physiology text book
    going back 10 or more years.
    
    Men on the average are best at upper body strength jobs, at jobs
    requiring speed, etc.. women tend to be best at what amounts to
    grueling endurance type of experiences.
    
    and Suzanne does have a point, it seems to me in re the guns. A
    gun can be designed to fit any body type and be efficent. However,
    in the type of desert conditions that our troops are in now, with
    all the protective gear they have to carry, the odds are strongly
    in favor of those troopers who can carry the most weight, and that
    by and large is still men.
    
    Bonnie

    	Considering that weapons were designed for men's body types,
    	is it any wonder that many women would find it fairly difficult
    	to conform to male military standards?

    	Since this is the case, it's hardly fair to blame women for not
    	pushing to be forced to fight with weapons designed for someone
    	else.

    	Further, it's utterly preposterous to claim that women are the
    	ones asking for special consideration when men have already been
    	given it by having the weapons designed specifically for them.

    re .70 >Considering that weapons were designed for men's body types

    Which weapons ? Any weapon which depends on upper body strength
    will favor men on average. ( Maybe that's why they're called 'arms')
    
    Modern weapons depend little on strength. Tanks, combat rifles,
    etc. seem pretty 'gender-neutral'. (The Army's M-16 is probably
    a bit too *small* for most men, a better fit for the average
    woman. Of course, it doesn't shoot a man-size bullet :-) )
    
    How would one design weapons for a woman's strengths ? Maybe 
    blades on the feet, combined with karate kicks, to take advantage
    of superior flexibility ? Heinlein, in 'Starship Troopers', 
    postulated that women would make better combat pilots because
    of superior reflexes, etc. However, can women handle the high
    G-forces as well ?

    Mike 
    
    Marathons combine both running speed and endurance. It is hard
    to describe the difference I'm getting at, I'll have to grab
    my pysiology books. 
    
    The sort of thing I'm talking about is more akin to spending all
    day in the hot sun planting rice seedlings, or going through
    48 hours of labor.
    
    It is a different kind of endurance than a marathon.
    
    Bonnie

    
    	RE: .74  Mike Z.
    
    	If men are inferior pilots compared to women, they why are they
    	allowed to fly in combat?  Why aren't they being excluded in
    	favor of an all-women squad (comprised of people whose bodies
    	are better suited to the job)?
    

    Well, trying to understand the basenote (after slogging through the
    expected sex vs. sex replies):
    
    I'm getting mighty tired of hearing "Woman and children set free, blah
    blah blah" on the TV night after night.
    
    Why?
    
    Not because I think it's horrible that they're set free.  Great
    bananas, let 'em go.
    
    I think it's rotten that the men aren't offered the same alternative. 
    
    Why aren't they?  Because of age old notions and mind sets that are
    visible in this notesfile, in this society and the fact that the men
    are kept hostage while those nice women and kids aren't.  It's not
    manly to keep women and kids hostage--but keeping men hostage is OK by
    virtue of the fact these are MEN prisoners.  Not exactly a benefit of
    being male that I'D want.  
    
    I don't think it's deplorable that the women chose to leave.  I don't
    think it's deplorable the men who DID get out left.  Why should they
    stay?  Why should anyone have to choose to be a hostage?  And why
    should one have to BE a hostage because they're male?
    
    So yes, it's awful, but not likely to change real quick.
    
    It's a vicious circle, folks.  Maybe it will erode one day, but not
    now, and unfortunately, not soon.  Not in my lifetime.
    
    As for the women in combat theory:
    
    Women should be allowed to fight if that is their desire, if they meet
    the prerequisites and if they form the needed skills.  There *should*
    be a standardized test:  however, it's very easy to maintain the status
    quo by making the test unreachable.  Therefore the test should be
    attainable--difficult as hell if that's what it's proven to take to be
    combat ready--but attainable.  If only 5% of the women who try out for
    it make it, so be it.  If only 2% make it, so be it.  If only one woman
    makes it, so be it.  But at LEAST the opportunity is THERE.  No one
    will know what cannot be done until it isn't done.  
    
    ---kim                                                  

    Suzanne, Mike's already provided acknowledgement that women's bodies
    withstand high g-forces better, and exclaims that he isn't therefore
    calling for the standards to be relaxed for lesser male abilities.
    Real big of him, huh?  Of course, the standards are already *at* the
    lower levels.  Governors on the planes like the F-16 limit the envelope
    to momentary periods at 9 Gs, the point where more men black out.  The
    weapon, as you've observed, is designed to fit the average male body.
    The reasons women aren't flying have nothing to do with that life-giving
    edge of the dogfight envelope.  Mike doesn't have to campaign for lower
    standards because enough men can already meet them, and are protected 
    from having to compete against better-capable women for their jobs.
    
    DougO 

    re .0
    
    actually, hoyt, i was just remarking to a friend that the "women and
    children" chorus was *really* getting on my nerves.
    
    i can't be OUTRAGED by that, because it seems to me that i'd accept any
    excuse to free hostages.
    
    but it's very hard to hear that phrase without snapping back something
    along the lines of "ahh, go ahead, just say you're releasing children;
    we all know women are children too, so they're implied..."
    
    if i were there, i can't honestly say whether or not i'd accept the
    offer to leave.  if i had kids with me, i'd probably HAVE to go.  but
    without the kids i'd like to think i'd insist on staying with the men -
    regardless of whether any of them were my husband.
    
    lee

    > 	Wrong.  The average male cannot withstand 9gs.
    
    Correct; the average-male-who-makes-it-through-pilot-qual-and-
    subsequent-weeding-procedures, is not average.  Btw, if all you 
    have to go on is Nova specials, you're not qualified to contradict. 
    I've been briefed in depth at centrifuge test facilities at Eglin.
    
    > 	More females can withstand 9gs than males.
    >
    > Planes are therfore designed closer to the limits of the female body.
    
    You mean, of course, the limits beyond which male bodies haven't been
    tested.  More women pass those tests, yes; but why aren't the planes
    thus optimized for that edge, to that place where women can pass and
    men can't (like upper-body-strength tests in other branches?)  Because
    then our forces would have a majority of female fliers, and that, of
    course, is unthinkable.
    
    Is it just possible that men are actually ok fighter jocks anyway?
    Maybe our forces aren't missing *that* much by setting this arbitrary
    barrier limit on jet performance, and thus excluding fewer men.  Maybe,
    just maybe, the same view can be taken of upper-body-strength
    requirements for infantry and combat soldiers.  Maybe women could be
    good field soldiers without that strength (just like men fly fighter
    jets ok).  Any soldier is gonna tell you its the teamwork of the unit 
    that makes the difference anyway, not the individual grunts.  Too bad 
    we're too screwed up as a nation about sex roles to find out.
    
    DougO  

re:  .36    
  
>>>What makes you say women don't have courage and determination (that is how I
read your comment).  

Based on personal observations of women in hand-to-hand combat situations. 
Based on trying to teach/train them in the marital arts.  Based on events which
are reported in the news, such as crime, muggings, and how women handled them. 
Based on what I saw while in the service.  Based on how I saw women handled at
the Academy.  Based on a couple of women, (in the past), challenging the Air
Force Academy with their feminist ideas about disrupting the boxing team and
wanting to try out, (after getting hit, they discovered it wasn't their cup of
tea).  Hell, do I need to go on???

Interesting example from 60 minutes....

Remember when maize became popular??  It was for the weak, defenseless, woman,
to prevent her from being assaulted.  They took a POLICE WOMAN, told her that
she was to walk through a certain area, and that she would be assaulted by
another police "man" and to try to use the maize on the attacker.  She was told
to resist to her best ability.  The WOMAN HELD THE MAIZE in her hand with it
SET to spray.  They did this several times. Every time, the woman had the maize
taken away, even though she resisted as best she could.  Only once did she
spray a guy in the face and he continued to take the maize away from her.  60
minutes asked him what it felt like.  He replied that it just made him madder
and that he wanted to hurt her bad, (and could have).  

>>>It wasn't ignored, yes men are usually stronger than women but that doesn't
stop women from been able to perform vital roles in combat.  You just have to
place them "strategically".  

You confirmed my point.  It makes for a weaker army.

>>>Funny, I always thought the Vietnam was a war.  What is your definition of
war?

While in the Air Force, I was corrected a couple of times by my superiors for
calling it a war.  I was quickly reminded that war had NEVER been declared and
that it was a policing action.  My text manuals on Air Force history always
used the term, "conflict."  By military philosophy, you're definition of war is
incorrect.

-db

re:  .59
    
>>>in general endurance tests, that don't require strength or speed, just
ability to 'keep on keeping on' women out perform men in laboratory situations. 

But combat requires those elements, so your point is moot.  But what would an
example of "keep on keeping on" be in an athletic or combat situation?
    
>>>this is testing a different kind of strenght than that of a marathoner.

What kind of strength that would be deemed useful?

-db

	>>>Oh, well, if you want to reserve combat duty for only the BEST	
ATHLETES, then we'll have a very, VERY tiny Army.

Disagreed.  Since males ARE better athletes, we have a better army.

	>>>it doesn't take a special athlete to	fight in combat, so size and
strength are not the biggest	factors.

But I believe it takes athletic ability.

    
    
    >>>    	Strength isn't everything.
    
        No one says it is, but it certainly makes the difference.

	>>>If men are inferior pilots compared to women, they why are they	
allowed to fly in combat?  Why aren't they being excluded in	favor of an
all-women squad (comprised of people whose bodies	are better suited to
the job)?

They're not.  We have the best damn pilots in the world today.  

As for an all-women squad, as I've stated, I don't think women have "combat
instincts" to handle war.  Women are wonderful and great and talented in many
fields, but I don't believe that combat is their cup of tea.
    

re:  .39
    
	>>>In any situation, I'd rather be with someone who does not pre-judge	
someone's ability on the sex organs beneath their clothes.

Agreed, except for talking about combat.  If the United States were to go to
war against an army with vaginas, I'd bet on the U.S.A. to kick names and take
a**!

	>>>Someone who deeply believes that women are inferior in combat is	
very likely to get killed next to a woman (and get the woman killed	as
well.)

Whether he/she believes it or not doesn't matter.  It would probably happen to
many.
    
	>>>This is the main reason why women aren't allowed in combat - the	
prejudice of others.

Don't state that as fact.  That prejudice BS is your reason.  Just because a
man or woman doesn't believe that women are suited for combat, doesn't make it
a prejudice issue.  You have a gift for twisting arguments when you're losing
them.

-db

    
    re:  .38
    
    Ken, well stated.  You hit on some of the very reasons that I stand
    behind and believe.  You've been there.  You know.  What you're saying
    is "you don't know, what you don't know."  I agree.
    
    -db

    Come to think of it, I must have gotten too serious in my last reply, for     
    I can't believe men in here are talking seriously about what a privilege 
    it is to get blazed away, and that women ask to be included as 
    candidates for mass slaughter. It's too bizarre.
    Guys, your 6'5 leatherneck won't stomach an Iraqui bullet any better than 
    a tiny, tender woman. Women, that same 6'5 leatherneck would willingly 
    trade geographical locations with any of you, believe me (if his brain 
    functions still provide him with an IQ higher than the one of a 3 year 
    old chimpanzee, that is...).
    While drinking coffee a few minutes ago, I had visions of women fighting
    with "weapons" tailored to their needs & tactics. I could picture 100
    bikini-wearing women storming a strategical position held by a male
    elite troup, and I can't think of any attacker men are more likely to
    "surrender" to. The women would take that position, believe me.
    "Binding" enemy forces (so they can't intervene somewhere else)  is a 
    basic of strategical thinking according to Clausewitz, so why not using
    non-standard methods to accomplish it. Seems West-Point's methods are
    getting obsolete here...
    More than that, I can recall "surrendering" myself to the charms of a
    female Israeli soldier during a vacation I had in Eilat many years ago,
    and believe me, they've had some good training in close range combat;
    and I can only confirm that they have more stamina for long-lasting
    efforts, eh? ;-)  (Egad, written boasting with sexistic undertone
    really sounds CHEAP, must be the ape in me running amok, or somebody
    putting some amazing product in my coffee..)(This must be enough to 
    confirm women's worst fears about what men talk about, guess I'm
    providing feministically-oriented co-noters with useful ammunition...)
      Generals really ought to review their tactics, I'm sure that bombarding
    the Iraqui positions with "Paris one week for free"-tickets (incl.
    entries to the Moulin Rouge) would accomplish a lot more to undermine
    the moral of Hussein's soldiers than positioning 40000 undermotivated
    guys (that just want to get the hell out of there) in front of them. And,
    maybe it would come cheaper, too...
    Maybe I ought to apply for some strategic position in the Defense
    ministery...at least, I wouldn't have the guts to first provide the 
    Iraqui army with state-of-the-art weaponry - and *afterwards* ask poor 
    young chaps to look stern and defend the interests of Western democracy
    against the despotic and evil Hussein. Not with a straight face, 
    anyway...
    ...Paul
    

    
    I know that a few of the female noters here aren't going to like this,
    but having read all the replies I'd like to say something.
    
    I am a fit, healthy, average sized woman.  There is NO WAY I would want
    to go in to combat.  My husband (a fit, healthy, average-sized man) is
    much stronger than me.  He can pick me up and throw me over his
    shoulder with no problem.  I could not do that to him.  (An ability
    that is quite important when, for example, trying to transport buddies
    injured in combat out of the battle-zone).  He can pin me down with no
    problem, and I can't move.  (BTW, I don't fight with my husband except
    in play!).
    
    The fact remains that I *know* that if you put us both on the
    battle-field he could easily out-perform me.  He is faster and
    stronger.  There are alot of things that I can do better than him, but
    this is not one of them.  
    
    If I thought that I could honestly perform as well as a man in combat
    I'd go.  I have courage, I have determination.  I have a feeling that
    faced with a bunch of 5'10" male *enemies* those two admirable
    qualities wouldn't do me a lot of good.
    
    If I were a hostage in Iraq I would opt to stay with my husband rather
    than going.  This is a different kettle of fish all together.  They are
    not in combat.
    
    Obviously, men and women were made differently.  There is nothing we
    can do to change that.  Go back to evolution - it's not that combat was
    made for men, but men were made for combat (they were always the
    hunters).  Women never had to do that sort of thing, so they weren't
    made accordingly.
    
    I'm sorry if I sound like a pathetic, whimpering female, or if you
    think I'm copping-out.  I don't think so, and this is just my opinion.
    
    Sam
    

    re .83
    
    Really? You got no satisfactory response when trying to train women
    in the "marital" arts? Hmmm...could you please get more specific?
    
    Sorry, I know I'm being mean, but I've seldom seen a funnier typo...or
    maybe not a typo??
    
    :-) ...Paul
    

    	RE: .89  Dwight Berry

    	>>In any situation, I'd rather be with someone who does not pre-judge	
	>>someone's ability on the sex organs beneath their clothes.

	> Agreed, except for talking about combat.  If the United States were 
    	> to go to war against an army with vaginas, I'd bet on the U.S.A. to 
    	> kick names and take a**!

    	Pretty graphic of you, Dwight.  

    	In reality, if our Army went up against an Army of trained women,
    	they wouldn't stand a chance.  All they'd be able to think about
    	is the vaginas you mentioned - and they'd barely be able to move.
    	
    	>>This is the main reason why women aren't allowed in combat - the	
	>>prejudice of others.

	> Don't state that as fact.  That prejudice BS is your reason.  Just 
    	> because a man or woman doesn't believe that women are suited for 
    	> combat, doesn't make it a prejudice issue.  

    	It's a prejudice issue when people say that an individual can't
    	be competent in something due to their sex.

    	For example, if someone were to say men couldn't be competent as
    	custodial parents due to their sex, a lot of people here would
    	take serious issue with this, wouldn't they?  Same thing.
    
    	> You have a gift for twisting arguments when you're losing
	> them.

    	You have a gift for making raunchy comments about women as a way
    	to attempt to manipulate.  It doesn't work, by the way.

    
    	RE: .92  
    
    	No need to apologize for not wanting to go to combat - not every
    	man wants to go, either.
    
    	My son is a 19 year old - 6'3" tall, 195 lbs - he could probably
    	kick the daylights out of almost anyone I've ever seen in Notes
    	- and he doesn't want to go into combat either.
    
    	If we only allowed people in combat (men and women) who WANT to
    	be there, we'd have a better Army.
    

    I think that the "men are better marathoners" argument fails to account
    for the fact that the genders vary more within than between. That is,
    there are larger differences among men, say, than between men and
    women. The overall tendency may be greater stamina for women, and
    greater upperbody strength for men. But there are plenty of women who
    can run faster marathons than plenty of men. It looks something like:
    
       Men:        x    xx   xxxx   xxxxxxxxx     xxxx x x   xx     x
       Women:  y     y yy   yyy    yyyyyyyyy  yy   yy  y     y
    
                          || ---> U.S. Military capable --->
                     
    That's supposed to be a distribution showing that there's tons of
    overlap, with somewhat more men than women meeting the standard (||), 
    but lots of both genders qualifying.
    
    This is particularly true if we acknowledge that the military has
    always allocated men to roles according to their physical abilities.
    The guys lugging the 50-caliber machine guns are BIG.
    
    The "women can't do hand-to-hand combat" argument: First, how often are
    there opportunities for hand-to-hand in combat, particularly in deserts
    where troops have several miles of visible terrain? You Viet Nam vets:
    is it really an issue? I'd also suggest that there's a lot of overlap
    in men's and women's abilities at hand-to-hand, as with marathoning,
    though it's true that the male advantage of upperbody strength is more
    telling in hand-to-hand.
    
    I like the idea of millions of women trained by the U.S. Military in
    hand-to-hand combat technique. The next time a would-be rapist grabs
    one, he gets his neck broken. Husbands who might otherwise abuse their
    wives realize that it would be safer to engage in dialog. What percent
    of *dangerous* women would we need in the general population before men
    learned to leave their hands in their pockets?!
    
    - Hoyt

.66 says:
>It doesn't matter how smart or skillful or well-trained you are
>    when you get crushed by a tank, blown into pieces by a bomb, blazed
>    away by a machine gun or simply atomized by a nuclear weapon.

BINGO.  Go see Chaplin in "The Great Dictator", and listen to the closing
speech.  Also, my earlier point that no one -- women, children, men, AND
soldiers -- is exempt from suffering and death in war, was based on this.

Which of you said it?  You are right, I have never experienced war myself and
never hope to.  I hope my son and daughter never do, but do not really expect
them to escape completely.  I feel the anger in your reply, and can understand
how that anger comes about; how can I dare to make assertions about what I do
not know?  how can I judge the choices of others, without having been forced
to choose as others were?

But I must ask it -- how many young men really understood what combat would
be like, when they chose it?  or were chosen for it -- the draft took choice
away from many.

I for one do not judge, or anyhow try not to... but since I believe that there
ARE things worth fighting for, I have to ask if I *think* (no one can ever
really know until That Moment) I could fight, and kill, and face death, my
own personal self.  I have to do that as a human being, before I can see how
I feel about it as a woman.

As has been noted here, women can be just as ruthless as men.  But women and
men have different abilities in some areas.  It would be silly to make combat
training different, to make it more "fair" to women -- after all, war is not
a fair fight!  If I ever do get in a serious fight, I hope I fight to win,
otherwise why fight at all?  Either it's worth it or it's not.  If it is, use
the best weapons and troops _for_the_job_.  And be ruthless.  I don't want to
sacrifice my children and my worthy (else I'd not be fighting) cause to some-
one's idea of equal-opportunity-in-war.  This may mean: men do the heavy hand-
to-hand, cause it's with other men; if a men's platoon of army A meets a
women's platoon of army B, they don't politely turn aside!  It may mean, women
should be the fighter pilots.  It may mean, integrated combat support units,
sabotage squads, spies.

    Bottom line: I don't want to have to fight.  I wish the world were
    different, and wars didn't happen.  But if I ever do have to fight, I
    hope I fight to win.  That's the point.

    re: .93's nomination of "marital arts" as the typo of the year.
    
    I think there was a tie.
    
    db, how do you expect *anyone* to defend themselves with corn?
    
    E Grace 

    It was me in note .37 saying that skill don't count too much in war.
    And it's damn true. If you think generals plan wars something like "my
    favourite guys are going to wrestle position xy away from the enemy in
    heroic hand-to-hand combat" you've seen more John Wayne movies than
    recommendable for your mental health.
    The only thing that counts is to tie up the enemy in strategic position
    A with who-the-hell-cares-how-many-casualities, while bombing and
    shelling position B 'til nothing is left there but a few hysterical
    guys that survived by a miracle, and then position B is ripe for being
    attacked. If you see the opposition in B is still strong, you just go back
    to bombing and shelling until it isn't anymore. That's what they call
    strategy. The individual doesn't count a sh## in open modern war
    (Vietnam was a case apart). Now tell me where your muscular soldier
    with strong upper body muscles (it's really laughable) can achieve a
    damn thing there. He looks good in a parade, but he's just as useless
    when confronted to an air raid, a shelling or any other of our great
    technical achievements as anyone else.
    By the way, it was a Nam veteran in .38 that stated that we should keep
    our mouths shut, in which he's right. I think it's an insult to the
    memory millions of young people that died in useless wars to go and say
    that being cool and well prepared and heroic gives you a better chance
    of survival. 
    The strong survives, eh? You view war as a means of natural evolution
    that filters the best, the more brave, the more muscular, the better
    man, all in all? That's the type of disgusting brain-washing nonsense
    they preached in Germany 50 years ago. Do I have to tell you about the
    results?
    ...Paul

    Re .99:
    
    Powerful stuff. Soldiers are people who crouch under shellfire,
    wondering when their generals will make their next unfathomable move.
    Scary.
    
    The evolutionary effects of war would seem to breed a physically less
    fit, psychologically more cautious individual. If it's really a crap
    shoot, sitting under that barrage of shellfire, then the important
    selection occurs before men GET to the battle zone. Some don't make the
    physical tests, flunking the physical examination or failing to make it
    past boot camp obstacle courses. Others hide, in the university or the
    country next door, or in supply depot jobs, or in back of the (brave)
    guys leading the patrol. The courageous hunks get disproportionately dead.
    
    There's the macho side of going to war. My failure to retaliate is a
    reflection on my manhood, and THAT'S too important to blemish, so I'll
    hit back, and pretty soon the shells are flying. Missiles as phalluses.
    "National honor" that's an awful lot like male pride.
    
    How would macho work if half or 90% of our combat troops were female?
    Wouldn't the (patronizing) male tendency to watch out for our women
    (ironic tone here) require male politicians and diplomats to make all
    kinds of sacrifices to avoid the occasion for combat? "Heck, Joe, our
    choice is to back down on this oil thing or get our women all shot up.
    I guess the manly thing to do is apologize and get the heck outta
    there." It might be the end of war.
    
    - Hoyt

I'd like to know why so many people here are assuming that "combat" means
"infantry".  There are many military positions that even "small, weak" women
are eminently qualified for, including some pilot positions and technicians,
that are considered "combat" and thus they are excluded.  In Panama, the
army had women helicopter pilots who were being shot at; their male counterparts
were considered to be in "combat", but not the women, and the women lost out
on the decorations and promotions that were automatically handed to the men.

Heck, you put me out in a desert with an 80-pound pack and a rifle, and
see how many seconds it takes me to collapse.  You won't have to wait too
long.

Not every male is suited to being an infantry fighter.  Not every female
is either.  Why not drop the arbitrary restrictions and just let the
people, male or female, take the jobs for which they are suited?

One more thing - some of the men here are saying "women don't know what 
it's like because they haven't been there".  True, and until they are
allowed to "be there", they never will know.  So it's not a valid argument
to use.

					Steve

   This string shows that women can do combat...at least in notes...jeesh!
    
    I just finished reading the human side to sending women over to combat
    in "People" and it struck me that eventhough I'm for equal treatment
    for women, it's really hard on the children.  Yea, it's hard
    when Daddy goes to war, but who suffers most when Mommy and Dadday
    or just single Mommy is shipped out?

    Further, Women can't meet or beat men's strength.  So, we can't
    be equal.  By trying to customize gear and weaponry for women
    proves our inequality.  So, maybe we aren't suited for war.
    I'm willing to admit that, considering *lives* are on the line.
        
    Do women have to meet men's level of strength in every endeavor
    to gain credibility in our society? I hope not. I hope
    that men and women can treat each other as allies and equals
    while valuing each other's differences.  
    

    re: Steve L
    
>One more thing - some of the men here are saying "women don't know what 
>it's like because they haven't been there".  True, and until they are
>allowed to "be there", they never will know.  So it's not a valid argument
>to use.
    
    
    It sure in heck is a valid argument Steve.  Some people are arguing as
    if they know exactly what it is like, an impossible endeavor.  I have
    not been in a "combat" situation, but I have been in the Gulf, I have
    been in isolation duty on a freakin island, and I have seen the
    difference in treatment.
    
    tis really funny how some women here are the first to argure the glass
    ceiling bull, but these are the same ones that will never admit that
    there is a glass tank.  For we all know how cushy a tank is.

Re: .102

I don't understand - why is it more acceptable to send Daddy away than
Mommy?  What about single fathers?  We've got to break out of this mindset
that discounts the value of a father to a child.

As it happens, I saw a newspaper item about a woman reservist who was
leaving her child behind with her civilian husband.  They made a big deal
of this.  I doubt that she misses her child any more than do the fathers
who have been taken away from their families.

					Steve

Re: .103

>    tis really funny how some women here are the first to argure the glass
>    ceiling bull, but these are the same ones that will never admit that
>    there is a glass tank.  For we all know how cushy a tank is.

Right you are, Al.  Those M1 tanks have automatic transmissions and
air conditioning!  They must have been designed for women to drive! :-)

				Steve

    Re .102: "Do women have to meet men's level of strength in every 
              endeavor to gain credibility in our society?"
    
    Various replies to this topic mention how women in combat WOULD enhance
    the position of women in our (U.S.) society, e.g. combat veterans
    receive many benefits, women could better defend themselves from
    violence, and more.
    
    The topic, however, is not "What do women have to do in order to gain
    credibility in our society." That's a good topic, but the topic here is
    "Why do MEN always have to be the combatants?" The issue is NOT the
    elevation of women, but the radically severe hazards to which men are
    disproportionately exposed during war.
    
    What would the effect on our society's tendency to war be if there were
    lots of Mommy's being killed and mutilated on the battlefield? With our
    present model, Dad got blown away, but he was mostly an income-object
    anyway, and the federal govenment provided cash payments in lieu of
    Daddy, so what the heck? Conceding the (present) greater attachment of
    children to Mommy, perhaps those children would be MORE INDIGNANT about
    their loss, when Mommy gets pulped? Maybe those children would become
    aggressive pacifists? It might be the end of war!
    
    - Hoyt

    	RE: .106  Hoyt

    	> -< War widowers - there's an expression I like! >-

    	It's strange, but I've never liked the name "war widows" - I don't
    	understand the concept of hoping people die, I guess.

    > What would the effect on our society's tendency to war be if there were
    > lots of Mommy's being killed and mutilated on the battlefield? 

    	Would it be any more cause for rejoicing than the idea of men
    	killed on the battlefield?  Neither one is very appealing.

    > With our present model, Dad got blown away, but he was mostly an 
    > income-object anyway, and the federal govenment provided cash payments 
    > in lieu of Daddy, so what the heck? Conceding the (present) greater 
    > attachment of children to Mommy, perhaps those children would be MORE 
    > INDIGNANT about their loss, when Mommy gets pulped? Maybe those children 
    > would become aggressive pacifists? It might be the end of war!
    
    	Instead of making an effort to see women killed more, how about
    	an effort to have men killed less?

    	Your glee at the thought of women dying is a bit ghoulish, pal.

    RE: .103  Al

    > It sure in heck is a valid argument Steve.  Some people are arguing as
    > if they know exactly what it is like, an impossible endeavor.  I have
    > not been in a "combat" situation...

    Then, you have as little right to speak as anyone else who hasn't faced
    combat, by your own logic.

    > tis really funny how some women here are the first to argure the glass
    > ceiling bull, but these are the same ones that will never admit that
    > there is a glass tank.  For we all know how cushy a tank is.

    What are you talking about with the glass tank?

Re: .107

Um, Suzanne, I think you missed Hoyt's use of irony completely.  At least
that's how I read it.

			Steve

    
    	RE: .109  Steve
    
    	Well, I sincerely hope that's what it was.  (Considering the notes
    	he's written - at least one of these was deleted last night - it
    	seems as though he is advocating more deaths for women as part of
    	a move towards equality.)
    

Re: .110

I really don't think so.  Some of your own notes might seem rather startling
when read a bit too literally.  Unfortunately, this medium doesn't readily
allow for "tone of voice", and also lacks the feedback mechanisms present
in person-to-person conversation.  I often find it necessary to ditch my
preconceived notions about what I THINK someone's attitude is when reading
what they wrote, because they distort what I see.

I generally try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and don't try to
read nefarious motives into people's words.

					Steve

    No, there is no easy answer to the basenoter's question.
    
    I abhor war and violence in any form.  Until women are trained for and
    allowed into combat positions, men *will* remain the primary
    combatants.  Until rank and promotion is based on skill and ability,
    rather than gender, chances are that women will be in the minority of
    the upper ranks.
    
    Until those opportunities are available, we will not know how women
    will react in a combat situation.  I hope that we'll be able to find a
    peaceful solution to international conflict before that day comes.
    
    re holding women and children hostages, could it be that the captor
    would be looked upon as weak, since the hostages would be looked upon
    by many as the "weaker, gentler sex"?  Hussein is getting plenty of
    media mileage out of this ploy.  What's he going to try when the women
    and children have left the country?
    
    So, why *are* men the combatants?
    
    
    Judi
    

    RE: .31  Until the enemy overtakes your position and you are involved
    in hand ot hand combat.  After you are captured, you will probably be
    repeatedly raped by the enemy men.  What a hoot.  
    
    Let the women and children go, I'll stay.  I don't want my wife,
    mother, daughter, or any other female subject to this.  
    
    Mike

    
    	RE: .113  Mike W.
    
    	Men can be (and ARE!) raped, too, Mike.
    
    	It's very nice of you to offer to be subjected to this, but
    	your sentiments may not be appreciated by all if it means
    	having opportunities held back as part of the deal.
    

    Here's one for the biological warfare guys to take on:
    
    Inject all our troops (male, female) with an agent which is a virulent
    and ugly venereal disease, only it's kept in check by a nutrient
    provided in k-rations. Our fighters show no symptoms, but the agent 
    is active and infectious. If the enemy dips their wick in our captured
    soldiers, then their wick drops off. The great thing about this is that
    even the RUMOR of such a thing would eliminate rape.
    
    More seriously: There are rules of war, which include no torture,
    reasonable hygiene, visits by the International Red Cross, etc. When
    women are a part of armed forces generally and their capture is a
    reality for most nations, then the rules of war will include "no rape."
    By setting themselves apart from the institutions of war, women forego
    the protections of international law.
    
    - Hoyt

    Re: .113
    
    Mike, it's all well and good that you want to protect women from
    harm, but really, don't you think that these women ought to be able
    to make the decision for themselves?  They can hardly be unaware of
    the risks.  It's a lot better than in the 60's and early 70's where
    if you were a male and turned 18, you might get sent off to be killed
    against your will.
    
    Also, being pragmatic about it for a moment, if the enemy overtakes
    your position and you are male, you'd probably be shot dead on the
    spot.  I guess that's an improvement...
    
    Re: all
    
    As it happens, the Newsweek I just got in the mail has a cover story
    about "Women Warriors - Sharing the Danger".  The article makes it
    clear that, like it or not, women are joining men in the Persian Gulf,
    and are just as much (if not more so) at personal risk than the men.
    One quote:
    
    	Some military experts sayu the gulf call-up underscores the
    	hypocrisy of Pentagon policies toward women:  though they can't
    	serve on the fighting lines, they are in harm's way - particularly
    	in a conflict where the "front line" could be everywhere.  "Every
    	military manual instructs you to hit the back supply line first
    	and try to isolate the front line," says Rep. Patricia Schroeder,
    	who chairs the House subcommittee on military installations. 
    	"Where are all the women?  In the back lines with the supply
    	details, communications equipment and refueling planes."
    
    Some more quotes:
    
    	"I can fly that F-15 just as well as a man," insists 25-year-old
    	Lt. Stephanie Shaw, who controls flight missions for a tactical
    	air wing in the gulf.  "I volunteered for the Army, not the
    	Girl Scouts," echoes Capt. Leola Davis, commander of a heavy-
    	maintenance company that fixes everything from tanks to HUMV
    	jeeps at the Army's First Cavalry Division at Fort Hood, Texas.
    
    	Women officers also bitterly complain that the rules have created
    	a "glass ceiling," since advancement to top ranks often depends on
    	leading combat units.  "A number of women say, 'Hey, don't protect
    	me from combat' because the price is too high," says Navy Capt.
    	Susan Canfield, who oversees nine ships mapping the Pacific for
    	antisubmarine warfare.
    
    The article is well worth reading.  
    
    				Steve

    
    	RE: .116  Steve Lionel
    
    	People Magazine also has a woman pilot on the cover with her baby
    	(before she departed for Saudi Arabia.)
    
    	Evidently, there's a good-sized article about the women leaving
    	their children behind to head off for a potential war.
    
    

    Just one effort to really answer this note's title question "why are
    men always the combatants?"...
    Why? Because men are subdued to brain-washing from childhood on. While
    girls read "Little Women" and learn to cultivate their individual
    feelings, boys read "Ivanhoe", read about El Alamo, about Leonidas and
    his stern Spartan soldiers in ancient Greece and reflect this in their
    games while playing heroes...until it really goes over into their "codex
    of honour", this belief that "a man's supposed to fight for his dear
    ones, for his country", this willingness to sacrifice. Aditionally,
    he likes the feeling of togetherness while being in a group of men 
    (the "pack", biologically speaking) that shares this beliefs and 
    where they can trust each other, something drumed into their heads by
    team sports and war games...what are men's team sports and games for
    else than training "military virtues"?
    And, when the opportunity arises, this beliefs are shamelessly misused
    by rotten politicians and generals that send the guys into slaughter
    letting them believe they are fulfiling "their duty".
    Men are the combatants because our education still cultivates those
    traditional military values in boys, because boys are more manipulable
    with their naive belief in things that seem worthwhile fighting for.
    Mainly, men are the combatants because they are unfortunate enough to
    be sent those damn places, but they are the combatants because once
    they are there they'll walk obediently into slaughter, for they've been
    raised that way.
    That explains why women that have been educated with men around them
    perform better when it comes to military "virtues", like someone noted
    *many* replies ago...
    The bottomline is that men are the combatants because they are educated
    to sacrifice for "their" beliefs (which happen to be those they have 
    been indoctrinated with...), families and countries from early
    childhood on. Women are raised with more common sense, more aware or
    themselves and their close surroundings. That's why women are like
    female lions when it comes to defending their families and dear ones,
    (remember that "hell hath no fury like a mother defending her cubs"!)
    but don't really understand what this manly nonsense of honour is
    about; whereas men are able to be slaughtered for abstract "ideals"
    like freedom or any other. Men are just being ruthlessly misused because
    they are naive. That's what it's all about.
    It's a shame.
    Just a try to answer the question.
    ...Paul
    P.S.: You see this heroic attitude partially reflected in .113's "save
          the women from rape, take my life!". Of course I'd try to help
          any woman or man in trouble, but if I knew in advance that saving
          her from rape would cost my own life I'd think twice about it, 
          hell, at least the consequences of rape are not as irreversible
          as the ones of myself being murdered.

re:  .95  Conlon

           -< You missed the point - it isn't size nor strength... >-

	>>>My son is a 19 year old - 6'3" tall, 195 lbs - he could probably	
kick the daylights out of almost anyone I've ever seen in Notes	- and he
doesn't want to go into combat either.

You are arguing with yourself, Sue.  Check your sub-title about "size and
strength" and then check your next paragraph where you're saying your BIG boy
can whup the daylights out of us, (which speaking for myself, I doubt
seriously).  As Z pointed out, you're too busy looking for points to argue and
not paying attention.

	>>>If we only allowed people in combat (men and women) who WANT to	
be there, we'd have a better Army.

Wrong.  We'd have no Army.

-dwight

re:  .93/.98

Notes war guidelines:  When you have no argument, look for typo's.

re:  .94  conlon

	>>>Pretty graphic of you, Dwight.  	In reality, if our Army went up
against an Army of trained women,	they wouldn't stand a chance.  All
they'd be able to think about	is the vaginas you mentioned - and they'd
barely be able to move.

So, you're saying if we went to war against an army of men, and we sent in an
army of women, all the women would have to do is spread their legs and win the
war, right?  Pretty graphic of you, Sue.

	>>>It's a prejudice issue when people say that an individual can't	
be competent in something due to their sex.

It doesn't have to be.  It could be fact.

	>>>For example, if someone were to say men couldn't be competent as	
custodial parents due to their sex, a lot of people here would	take serious
issue with this, wouldn't they?  Same thing.

Funny, the courts say that, when a young child is involved.  Fact.
    
	>>>You have a gift for making raunchy comments about women as a way	
to attempt to manipulate.  It doesn't work, by the way.

Manipulate what?  Whom?

    Ahem....
    
    I think I've posted enough arguments in here, even if you haven't
    answered to any of them, Dwight.
    
    Really, I respect your efforts for physical fitness, for I'm a sports
    lover myself, but if you think that being a fit man and a trained
    fighter would help you a bit in a war, you are my candidate number 1
    for a rude awakening in such a situation (or a quick passing-away, come
    to that). It's just a matter of damn rotten luck if you're killed or
    not, and muscles don't hold their own too well against bullets or tanks
    or shelling. Any general would laugh at the idea of having "high
    quality" soldiers, he'd ask for quantity, and not so much quality.
    A general keeps the enemy busy by keeping him busy letting him
    slaughter some regiments merrily in point A. It doesn't matter if it's
    high quality soldiers or whatever, it's just like throwing a stick to a
    dog to keep him busy chewing around on it 'til there's nothing left.
    I think that as long as there are guys that are backward enough to
    believe they can "prove themselves" in combat, we will have wars. Let's
    change this attitude.
    Canalize your aggressions in more useful ways, folks. Dwight, you're
    cordially invited to a sparring session in my boxing gym in Frankfurt
    and a beer afterwards anytime, believe me, it's somehow more
    recommendable than getting yourself hurt in a place and in a conflict
    you've got no part in.
    ...Paul

>>>Further, Women can't meet or beat men's strength.  So, we can't be equal. 
By trying to customize gear and weaponry for women proves our inequality.  So,
maybe we aren't suited for war.

Funny how some of the women here ignore excellent points, as above, all for the
sake of promoting a political movement.

Note .102 makes an excellent point, above.  That's one of the points most of us
are making here.  But another point that is my opinion, based on other things
I've already mentioned, I know that some women can be "ruthless" as someone
else mentioned.... but I don't believe that most women can come any where near
the average man when it comes to the "nature" of war.  I think it has something
to do with the nature of being male.  A wolf has a special nature all his own. 
The lions do, as Sue mentioned.  A pit-bull and a German Shepherd have more of
an aggressive nature, than do... say... Beagles or Collies. And so it is with
men.  We're more aggressive and cunning when it comes to war.  I'm not saying
that's good or bad, right or wrong, fair or unfair to women.... I just believe
that's one of the "laws of nature."  Males and females are NOT alike nor  are
they equal, as .102 also mentioned.  I love women for their unique qualities
that I know I don't possess.  I have to accept that there are differences and
can not change them, like it or not.

One can flag wave that women are as equally suited for combat all they want,
and one might fool a few fellow comrades, but I'll never believe it.  So I
suppose I'll turn this topic back over to the "super women" and let them
continue to beat their chest about how big, bad, brave, and strong they are and
how if we'd only fight with smaller weapons like squirt guns they'd have a
better chance of showing the world how equal they are.  It's all rather
laughable.

-db

Steve, Paul, others...

Don't get locked in on just hand-to-hand combat here.  I'm not just talking
fighting with hands, (actually I don't remember doing so at all).

I'm talking about the "nature" of fighting too.  Paul, you spoke of the
attitude of fighting or such that we had to change.  What I'm saying is it's
our nature to be this way.  It's been that way since the beginning and it will
NEVER change.  If you believe it will, then you're not living in reality, guy.

Thanks for the invite, Paul.  Sounds like fun.  I don't have my own gym, but I
have one of the best in the nation.  I box at the Air Force Academy for kicks.
A method of attempting to remain young!  And the coaches and I do get together
for a few brews too, from time to time!

-dwight

    	RE: .121  Dwight Berry
    
    	> -< You missed the point - it isn't size nor strength... >-

	>>My son is a 19 year old - 6'3" tall, 195 lbs - he could probably	
	>>kick the daylights out of almost anyone I've ever seen in Notes	- and he
	>>doesn't want to go into combat either.

	> You are arguing with yourself, Sue.  Check your sub-title about 
    	> "size and strength" and then check your next paragraph where you're 
    	> saying your BIG boy can whup the daylights out of us, 
    
    	You're confused, Dwight.  The comment about my son was addressed
    	to a woman who said she was smaller and not as strong as men, so
    	she didn't want to go to war.  I told her that size doesn't matter
    	- offering as illustration that my son is bigger and stronger than
    	most men, and he doesn't want to go to war either!  (Get it??  Size
    	and strength are not the most important qualities - so it wouldn't
    	have mattered if the woman I was addressing was bigger and stronger
    	than most men as well; she STILL might not want to go to war.)
    
    	>>If we only allowed people in combat (men and women) who WANT to	
	>>be there, we'd have a better Army.

	> Wrong.  We'd have no Army.
    
    	You're wrong.  We'd have an Army with a better chance of staying
    	alive.

    	RE: .123  Dwight Berry
    
    	>> Pretty graphic of you, Dwight. In reality, if our Army went up
	>> against an Army of trained women, they wouldn't stand a chance.  
    	>> All they'd be able to think about is the vaginas you mentioned 
    	>> - and they'd barely be able to move.

	> So, you're saying if we went to war against an army of men, and we 
    	> sent in an army of women, all the women would have to do is spread 
    	> their legs and win the war, right?  Pretty graphic of you, Sue.
    
    	Pretty deliberately false of you, Dwight.  I said nothing of the kind.
    
    	You called an Army of women "an Army of vaginas" (which is a pretty
    	revealing statement about how you see women) so I remarked that an
    	Army of men would probably have similar THOUGHTS about women, and
    	would be unable to move because of this.
    
    	>>For example, if someone were to say men couldn't be competent as	
	>>custodial parents due to their sex, a lot of people here would	
    	>>take serious issue with this, wouldn't they?  Same thing.

	> Funny, the courts say that, when a young child is involved.  Fact.
    
    	And a lot of people here take issue with this!  Fact!  
    
    	>>You have a gift for making raunchy comments about women as a way	
	>>to attempt to manipulate.  It doesn't work, by the way.

	> Manipulate what?  Whom?
    
    	You make raunchy comments about women's sexual organs as a way to
    	attempt to manipulate those you're addressing.  

    
    	RE: .125  Dwight Berry
    
    	> So I suppose I'll turn this topic back over to the "super women" 
    	> and let them continue to beat their chest about how big, bad, brave, 
    	> and strong they are...
    
    	A few people (such as yourself) must have had sex change operations
    	during the night, I guess.  I haven't seen any women claim to be
    	bigger and stronger (or braver) than men.  I've seen a lot of the
    	reverse, though.
    

You're confused.  You started with the sex organs.  Try to stay on track.

================================================================================
Note 500.39            Why are MEN always the combatants?!             39 of 129
CSC32::CONLON "Cosmic laughter, indeed...."          11 lines   4-SEP-1990 09:55
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    	In any situation, I'd rather be with someone who does not pre-judge
    	someone's ability on the sex organs beneath their clothes.
    

re:  .129  Ms/Mr Colon
    
    	>A few people (such as yourself) must have had sex change operations
    	>during the night, I guess.  I haven't seen any women claim to be
    	>bigger and stronger (or braver) than men.  I've seen a lot of the
    	>reverse, though.
    

Cheap shot Sue.  I know now you're running out of zest....

    
    	RE: .130 Dwight
    
    	My comments were about the way people think (criteria for
    	prejudice.)  
    
    	It wasn't offered as an invitation for you to describe an 
    	Army of vaginas spreading their legs.
    
    	Guess you couldn't help yourself.
    

re: .125

>One can flag wave that women are as equally suited for combat all they want,
>and one might fool a few fellow comrades, but I'll never believe it.  So I
>suppose I'll turn this topic back over to the "super women" and let them
>continue to beat their chest about how big, bad, brave, and strong they are and
>how if we'd only fight with smaller weapons like squirt guns they'd have a
>better chance of showing the world how equal they are.  It's all rather
>laughable.
    
    Let me get this straight.  Women are suitable for the pain and strain
    of bearing children, the effort of raising them, the infinite patience
    and tremendous emotional strength of supporting the men they love in 
    marriage, the energy to often earn a serious quantity of money, yet
    it's "laughable" when they say they have the ability to use a
    grenade-launcher?  The instructions are written for people with 3rd
    grade educations, and the setup and use is pretty basic.  And according
    to some here, we're already "equal", it's just that some are more equal
    than others, right?
    
    And as for the physical comparison - men also get better times in
    marathons because their LEGS are longer, you know?  Women have just as
    good a target-eye, just as good hand-eye coordination, and I could
    probably fireman-carry a man of 200 pounds to save his *ss in battle. 
    If I had the choice of standing stateside and watching the world go up
    in flames, or going in and having at myself, I might just WANT to
    choose to make a difference.  If I had the opportunity, of course. 
    But, when it comes right down to it - if we had a war, and chemical or
    nuclear weapons were brought in - I don't think either sex would fare
    very well, and I don't think a finger with bright-red nails on the
    button would push any less hard than one with axle-grease on it....
    
    -Jody
    

    
    	As Steve Lionel pointed out (from NewsWeek) - women are in harm's
    	way (along with men in the Persian Gulf) - and since this is true,
    	they should be getting the pay and status that go with having been
    	in combat situations in the military.
    
    	It won't keep women from being killed by simply refusing to give
    	them this status.  
    

    in re .122 db and typos..
    
    well it was rather funny to think of the woman trying to use an ear
    of corn to defend her self...
    
    BJ

    RE: .114 YAWN  Since I wrote the note, I thought that most people
    could make the correlation that they were MY thoughts, not everyone
    elses.  Just as I don't believe everything which you present as fact is
    fact, but your opinion.
    
    RE: .113  In the letting the women and children go scenario, I was
    addressing what is taking place in the Middle East right now.  I'd
    insist that my wife and kids leave.  If my wife said she wanted to stay
    with me, I'd tell her to get her *ss on the plane PERIOD.  This is not
    because I want to be a martyr and die, it is because anyone who can get
    out should get out.  If I was offered the opportunity and there were
    other women and children or elderly or handicapped, etc there I would
    request theat they get released in my place.  Why?  No, I don't want to
    die or be held captive, but I have been taught that you put others
    before yourself.  I'm sure some may construe this as being sexist or
    something, if that's what makes you happy, then fine.
    
    RE: Paul-I agree, avoid war at any cost.  I was never in any kind of
    wartime conflict, so I don't know what it's like. I do have some
    buddies who have been there, and they say it's the next best thing to
    hell.  They say that the movie which most closely resembles what it is 
    like was "hamburger Hill".  I am not a war monger and would like to see
    all conflict end.  The problem is that when you have countries where
    the main belief that if they die in conflict they go straight to heaven, 
    it is almost impossible for peace to become a realization.  I do pray for 
    it every day though.  
    
    
    Mike

    	RE: .135  Bonnie

    	> in re .122 db and typos..
    
    	> well it was rather funny to think of the woman trying to use an ear
    	> of corn to defend her self...

    	No offense to the person who made the typos (I forget who it was) -
    	but it is actually funny to think of self-defense with corn.  :-)

    	It's good to see some levity in this topic.  ;^)

To get back to the base note and the title: "Why are MEN always the
combatants?!", the answer is - they aren't.   As someone said in the Newsweek
article (I don't have it in front of me at the moment), "Women have always
come back in body bags."  But we've tended to lock in on the rifle-toting
infantry grunt as THE definition of "fighting man", and to discount the
involvement of those men, and women, in other aspects of combat, who put
themselves just as much at risk and who die in large numbers.  I guess it's
more glamorous to be shot while charging up "Hill number 437" than to die
in a mortar attack on the supply camp.  Too many Ronald Reagan and John
Wayne movies....

It does appear, though, that with the gulf crisis, the participation of women
in armed conflict is no longer going to be something we (meaning the American
public) can ignore.

				Steve

Re:  .104 Steve Lionel:

>I don't understand - why is it more acceptable to send Daddy away than
>Mommy?  What about single fathers?  We've got to break out of this mindset
>that discounts the value of a father to a child.

I overlooked single daddies Steve.  You're right.  In my experience
most single parents are single moms.  And those single moms would rather
eat glass than transfer custodial rights and child support to their ex
boyfriends or ex husbands.  So, if single mom goes to war, who takes
care of the children?  It'd probably be best for the child to be
with the father, but that won't happen.  That's where I was coming from.

RE:106 Hoyt Nelson:

>    The topic, however, is not "What do women have to do in order to gain
>    credibility in our society." That's a good topic, but the topic here is
>    "Why do MEN always have to be the combatants?" The issue is NOT the
>    elevation of women, but the radically severe hazards to which men are
>    disproportionately exposed during war.

Granted, Hoyt. The topic 100 replies ago was different from the topic 
100 replies later. Thru the replies, I've noticed that the theme
"just give women a chance in war to prove that they can do the same as men"
It's that theme I was addressing.      

I guess I was replying to give the other side of the coin. Suzanne Conlon
doesn't speak for all women. Nor does she attempt to!  But, she's the
most active participant in this discussion so far.  I don't want people
coming away from this conference thinking all women have the same mindset
as Suzanne.  

If, thru the efforts of equal rights activists, I get drafted into a 
war in the future, I'll be the first one to dodge the draft.  War sux
and I will never (nor have I in the past) advocate it thru my actions.

Kathy

    
    	RE: .141  Mike Z.
    
    	"Glass ceiling" was a quote from Newsweek (offered by Steve Lionel
    	for discussion.)
    
    	> Won't be long before they start to complain that the Army is
    	> treating them like chattel.
    
    	"They" who?  Newsweek or Steve Lionel (or both)?
    
    	Should people refrain from quoting Newsweek here or what?
    

    
    	RE: .145  Mike Z.
    
    	> The espousers of "those mean, chauvinistic men are holding us
    	> women down by keeping us poor and pregnant".
    
    	You said the party line was being played like a record (even
    	though the quote came from Newsweek via Steve Lionel.)
    
    	So your accusation applies to them.
    
    	Again, I ask.  Whose party line is this - Newsweek's or Steve's?
    

  <<< Note 500.122 by BLITZN::BERRY "UNDER-ACHIEVER and PROUD of it, MAN!" >>>
                                -< bored, huh? >-

>>re:  .93/.98

>>Notes war guidelines:  When you have no argument, look for typo's.
    
    
    I have no argument, that is true.  Of course, I didn't profess to have
    an argument.  I am a Friend.  I believe in the Peace Testimony to the
    depths of my soul.
    
    If you will read the next topic, you will better understand my feelings
    regarding equality.  Not equality for women.  Not equality for men.
    Just equality.  I will excerpt part of the passage here.  
    
    (Excuse me, E Grace.  Do you mind if I do an extract of your note?
     No, of course not!  Why thank you.)
    
    
    Note:  Where there are two sets of quotation marks, Dr. Calderone
           entered a quotation.
    
    
    ""Who comprises mankind?" Everyone, men, women and children." 
    ""Who comprises womankind?"  Women."
    ""Why the separate-but-not-equal term womankind, as if women were a 
    sub-species?"  Why, indeed?"
    ""Why not use humankind to mean men, women, and children, and mankind 
    only as the equivalent of womankind?"  Why not?
    
                            ----------------------
    
    ""In a large southern city I noticed in some of the older public 
    buildings that there were separate washrooms still labeled 'colored 
    women' and 'white ladies'."  Separate but never equal."
    ""Didn't that seem to black women like an insult?"  It surely did."
    ""If the signs had read 'colored ladies' and 'white women', wouldn't 
    black women have felt just as much put down?"  Maybe more so."
    ""Then what about the washroom signs I saw in a large modern 
    building--these signs read 'Men' and 'Ladies'."  Same kind of put down, 
    by sex instead of color."
    
                            ----------------------
    
     "Being a Quaker lays on one the responsibility for engaging in a 
    continuing internal process of finding out what one really believes in, 
    and relentlessly tracking down one's own bigotries, prejudices, 
    inconsistencies, blindness, and refusals to recognize truth and accept 
    it as such  conversations with oneself like the above are part and 
    parcel of that process."
     "It is kind of a gadfly one carries around within one as a Friend--but 
    gladly.  If one cannot achieve such open conversations with oneself, it 
    is certain that communication with God will not be open."
     "Friends have always been especially sensitive to and questioning 
    about the ways in which human beings relate to each other, in a 
    continuing re-examination of their own inner and outer relationships.  
    This consistent component of Quakerism has resulted in the equally 
    consistent and insistent habit Friends have of looking upon and 
    treating all human beings as persons, regardless of age, color, 
    economic status, religion, occupation or gender."
    
    
    BTW, I deleted this note from its original location because I noticed
    I had made a typo in my transcription.
    
    RE: .135 and .138
    
    Thank you BJ and Suzanne.  I thought it was rather humerous myself.
    Especially as it kept being repeated.  The visual it conjured up in
    my mind was *definately* un-Quakerly!!
    
    E Grace

    
    	Mike, sweetheart, it would help a lot if you didn't respond 
    	with a knee-jerk to a moderator/noter's posting of a Newsweek 
    	article that happens to quote an accepted term in the business
    	world.
    

Re: .150

My participation here is as a noter, not as a moderator.  I try to keep the
roles distinct.  Please assume that I am speaking as "just another noter"
unless I say otherwise.

				Steve

    Excluding women from war is another example of male chauvinism.
    Men don't want women to go to war because they don't want their
    personal property (women) damaged. The ultimate fear is that their
    women will be taken prisoner and raped. That concern is the core
    behind every male objection about women fighting. In truth,
    females can fight equally well as males can fight. There is no
    logical reason to exclude women from any and all war activities. 

    In ancient times rape was a consideration to exclude women from
    battle, but not the major concern. Women were excluded from battle
    for two reasons: 1. Because ancient wars were primarily hand-to-hand
    combat, brute strength was extremely important; and 2. women were
    needed at home to take care of the children and crops.

    These reasons do not exist today. Brute strength has little to do
    with war. There are very few foot soldiers. Women can shoot
    rifles, drive tanks, fly airplanes, shoot missiles, repair
    trucks, navigate and pilot ships, maintain and run electronic
    equipment, hand out supplies, cook for hundreds, etc., etc., as
    well as any man. Women can endure heat and cold, thirst, fatigue,
    etc. as well as any man. They can endure the fear, boredom and
    interminable waiting between active battles better than most men.

    There are a few jobs, mostly in the army and marines, that do
    require brute strength, and fewer women than men can qualify for
    them. But there are very few men, for instance, who can qualify to
    join mountain troops, be paratroopers, underwater demolition
    divers, etc. But those who do qualify, male or female, should be
    given the chance.

    In frontier America women shot bears and Indians (and let's not
    get ratholed on that), often putting down a nursing infant to
    pick up the rifle. In colonial New Hampshire, for instance,
    Hannah Dustin killed and scalped several Indians who had
    kidnapped her, another woman, and a boy. In the 1600s there 
    was no question as to whether this was appropriate feminine 
    behavior.

    Women in occupied countries have always played important
    resistence roles. During World War I and II they helped escaped
    prisoners of wars, provided valuable information and often
    performed sabotage. We learned this to our sorrow in Vietnam when
    many 200-pound American male soldiers were killed by 85-pound
    Vietnam women.

    If we exclude a few androgen-driven gung-ho males in their late
    teens and early 20s, few people want to fight a war. But people
    of both sexes are willing to fight if they believe the cause is
    strong enough. People who feel that way should be given that
    choice, regardless of their gender.

    Bruce

   RE:153    Go for it, dad!!!
         
    I must say that I agree with you 100% (for once)!
           
    
    karenkay
    
    (to all you confused people, Bruce is my father)

    
    	RE: .153  Bruce
    
    	Excellent!!!
    
    	(You aren't my Dad, but you sound very much like him on this
    	subject - and he is a veteran of 3 wars, including VietNam.)
    

    Mike, you're right.  Men really AREN'T qualified to talk about men, are
    they?  And neither are women.  Thank goodness you're around.
    
    Ray

�	A sole man is not qualified to speak for all men.
    
    If only everyone could remember that...
    
    By the way, does that mean that a sole man is not qualified to speak
    for all women?
    
    Ray

    I just went through the autobiography of one of Lord Kitchener's staff
    officers, who obviously went through some adventures in the British
    empire, and he was the living testimony that tha "amazons" were a bit
    more than a legend.
    In fact, they were called "Amodozo" and were the traditional body-guard
    of an African King somewhere in the Ivory coast area. He describes:
    "...They must have been close to a man's height....I gaped at the
    leading one as she approached, a great ebony figure naked to the little
    blue kilt at her waist, with a long stabbing spear in one hand and a
    huge cleaver in her belt. As she passed along us I noticed that at her
    girdle there hung two skulls and a collection of lion's  claws....I
    never saw anything on Horse Guards that looked as well-drilled and
    handsome - or as frighteningly dangerous..." He decribes how these
    soldiers slashed a man to pieces, and that they were regarded as the
    best fighters in Africa, not only for strength, but for being able to
    march in absolute silence and other tactics.
    It's curious that these footnotes to history get forgotten, probably it
    wouldn't do too much good to the boy's education as cannon-fodder to
    realize that women could just do exactly the same thing, if they
    wouldn't be educated differently.
    There's been so much nonsense propagated in here about the so-called
    "differences" at physical level between men and women that I just have
    to add something, even though I hate being contributing to the discussion
    at this level: It's a damn proven thing that, yes, there ARE
    differences in strength when you take a 25 year old man and a woman and
    do some tests. But, dammit, that is because the education of the guys
    is much more physical than the one of the girls, all around the world.
    It's not so much because there are genetical differences. It's the boys
    that spent the whole day running and wrestling and playing football,
    whereas the little girls are educated differently.
    Face it, fellas: we're educated for being cannon fodder, and that's why
    we're sent there. Spare me the stuff of defending whatever values
    against evil foreign cultures that absolutely want war. Come on, the
    day they really get to my throat, you'll see I can defend MYSELF and MY
    dear people like any of your heroic idiots, there's not too much to
    admire there; but I can't fathom why anybody should be dying for the
    interests of Esso, Shell or Texaco. It's dollars that rule the world,
    so let them pay for it, let's start being clever enough not to be the
    cheaper choice...the one that pays with blood instead of money.
    If there's anyone that would willingly defend western interests in the
    Gulf region, he's hopeless...but a perfect product of what our system's
    education wants him to be, though.
    ...Paul
     

    What a note!
    
    We have some people who say war is bad - no way do you fight
    
    Some say men are 'bred' for war.
     
    Some say give me (women) a chance.
    
    Some say no way will I (woman) go to war.
    
    Some say strength doesn't count (unless Marines etc)
    
    Some say a red fingernailed person can push a button as well as a man.
    
    Then we have (fact or fiction) Amazons
    
    
    Well in modern, as well as oldern wars, strength IS very important. It
    relates to numbers. The goal in real wars (not counting politicians
    wars such as Korea and Vietnam) is to win as fast as possible with as
    few causities (your own) as possible. One of the ways you do this is to
    employ as many heavy weapons as you can. These weapons weigh a lot and
    so does their ammo. It is not just the hand to hand thing that many
    seem to concentrate on. The back pack you carry was mentioned many
    notes back. Now add to that 6 gallons of water per day at about 8#/gal
    and you may be carrying an additional 48# of material. "Well we will be 
    supplied with the water". NO. You fight with what you have, not what is
    promised. If you cannot carry your load, YOU do not belong there
    PERIOD!
    
    Having said that, there are a couple of other points:
    
    Women in combat areas subject to death (such as support on the ground
    in Saudia Arabia) should get combat pay and recognition.
    
    I you think that when push comes to shove in this (your own) country
    you will respond, it will be TOO late. Pay me now, or pay me later with
    interest.
    
    Steve

    RE: Paul- Ever heard of male and female hormones?  That is a biological
    fact which make men and women a little different.
    
    RE: Heroic idiots-A little melodramatic, dontcha think?
    
    
    Mike

    re .162 "...when push comes to shove in this (your own) country...
             it will be too late..."
    
    Come on. Now THAT'S exactly the attitude that allows politicians to
    butcher thousands of young innocent people that don't have a damn thing
    to win or lose in the whole sorry conflict.
    
    My "own country" (stern look at the national flag with a manly tear in
    the eye here..)...spare me, you won't ever get me to fight for "a
    country" if I have a passport left to duck the draft. If you think I'll
    ever expose my neck for some obscure politics you're terribly wrong.
    I won't ever fight for a flag.
    I'd always fight like a lion when something that is dear and close to
    me is in danger. There I'd know what I fight for.
    
    I think it was reply .6 that stated that the effort should be made in
    preventing men from going to war, and not in allowing women to join in.
    That's the message.
    
    ...Paul
    
                                          

Paul,

    ..is your country not dear and close to you?

        
 

    re .163
    
    I never said there isn't a difference, there is. I'm just saying that
    if women's education would be different and as physically oriented as
    men's education is we'd have much more women that could fulfil any of
    the military's requirements, which aren't exactly very high...
    
    But that's not what counts. What counts is that values like "freedom"
    or "the flag" still appeal to the heart of a man, which makes him
    extremely manipulable. These concepts have been misused to sacrifice
    millions of lives throughout history, and will continue to be misused.
    THAT's what ought to be changed.
    
    And maybe I get melodramatic. It's difficult for me to stay cool when
    the guys that sit comfortably in front of their TV set start mumbling
    about what a shame it is that the boys still haven't bloodied Hussein's
    nose or support some benighted prejudices thoughtlessly that lead to
    the death of innocent people in the end.
    
    My father was in a real war, and he raised me hating everything that
    has a military label on it. He gets melodramatic when he talks about
    how all his friends and his father were sewn away by a useless war,
    too, and I think he's got every reason to.
    
    ...Paul
    

    re .165  "Paul...isn't your country dear to you?.."
    
    Guess what? I never ever understood this stuff with "a countries
    honour". How's that supposed to work? What's this generalization that
    leads to country A fighting country B?? Does mountain A feel insulted
    by mountain B? Do ALL people in one country insult ALL people in
    another? Are all Iraquis scum because Hussein occupied Kuwait? So how
    come you didn't send your guys when Hussein began a war against Iran 11
    years ago and used every dirty weapon he could in the process? Because
    the Iranies where scoundrels as well, but ALL Kuwaities are nice people
    worth dying for? 
    Come on, can't you see it? You're fighting for dirty rotten economical
    interests, and NEVER for the freedom of Kuwait, or the honour of the
    US. Please.
    I'm German. Over here, the term "country" has been misused more often
    than anywhere else, maybe that's what makes me careful.
    Is my country "dear" to me? No, man, not worth dying for. Even less for
    the economic interests of a few wealthy industries and individuals. And
    that's what war is about.
    ...Paul                  

    
    to -mike z:  I speak for me, not for all men, all women, or all
    humanity. Your style of arguing is to attack the noter in short,
    supposedly snappy, comebacks. Rarely do you ever put forth a coherent
    argument. If am wrong, please point one out to me that is longer than 3
    sentences. There is nothing wrong with criticism, but you would be a lot
    more convincing if you actual said something once in a while.
    
    Re: heavy weapons:
    To carry your arguement one step further, the heaviest weapons are
    bombs and missiles launched from installations hundreds of miles away,
    or from ships or planes. Brute strength has little to do their
    effective use.
    
    And, if the goal is the fastest possible win, than nuclear weapons
    would be the first weapon of choice in any conflict.
    
    Incidentally, Saddam was veryc close to reaching "nuclear capability"
    (to use the buzzword), and was stopped short of his goal thanks to
    Isreali air attacks on his A-bomb factory. Atomic weapons kill you
    regardless of how fast you run the marathon.
    
    Bruce
    
    
    

    I was watching a show on the Discovery Channel last night, Beyond
    2000.  One of the excerpts showed how a man had devised different 
    tests to measure people's strength.  I'm not sure of the mechanics
    behind it, but a person (in this case a woman) performed different
    types of physical activity such as bicycling, rowing etc. and
    her muscle strength was measured.  She was a petite woman with no 
    signs of bulging muscles and when the doctor evaluated his results
    he was quite surprised.  It turned out that that she had body
    strength equivilent to a football receiver.
    The point that I am trying to make is that we don't always know what
    women are physically capable of because women haven't been evaluated and 
    haven't had as much opportunity to be tested in an unbiased method.
    To make a blanket statement saying, "women can't do..." is
    discriminatory.   
    I've seen *plenty* of out of shape, disgustingly
    fat, weak men (isn't 40% of the overall population overweight - Mike,
    you'll correct me, right ;^)) that couldn't physically compete with
    a healthy woman if their lives depended on it.  (OK - I am speculating
    but if a guy couldn't even hoist his body up a flight of steps, I'd
    question his strength, endurance and agility.)
                   
       

    Re 500.153  CUPMK::SLOANE 

    >If we exclude a few androgen-driven gung-ho males in their late
    >Teens and early 20s, few people want to fight a war. 

    Good comments, Bruce, but I'm confused about the hormone you 
    identified. My understanding was that androgen was mostly a female
    hormone, and that males are predominantly beset by testosterone. An
    old girlfriend used to call it "testosterone poisoning."

    Does anyone (Bonnie) know?

    It has been noted, the propensity of men to respond to calls to 
    national honor (something like "stern look at the flag while a
    tear fills one eye" -- great!). Could THIS be related to male
    hormones? Could we prevent war by adapting B-52s to drop androgen
    into the world's water supplies? OR, we could drop testosterone
    into the water supplies, instead, killing several birds:
        - instant birth control for a whole nation (W. Allen 1968)
        - women grow more war-like and we therefore incur more casualties
        - net effect: reduction in world population and the biosphere is
          preserved!

    Maybe a more modest plan: Market "Big Dick" beer (subtle innuendo,
    appealing to MEN's men!) with LOTS'O'ANDRO (tm). In bars everywhere, 
    fights don't break out. Colonels everywhere say "Heck, forget those
    creepy Sidewinders, let's help the kids with their homework." Once
    again, the world is saved.

    I *do* believe that a lot of war-like behavior is stimulated by 
    relations between the sexes. Not "war between the sexes" -- there's
    too much fraternizing with the enemy (L. Niven 1972). But men going
    off bravely so Mom/girlfriend are proud. Men supporting fundamentalist
    religious revolutions which (not) incidentally reduce women to chattel 
    (there, a male person used the term!). I hope that feminism and the
    blurring of gender-differences will reduce this proclivity to fight
    for our home and country and sexual egos.

    - Hoyt

    An-dro-gen  n. A hormone that develops and maintains masculine 
                   characteristice.   ---an'dro-gen'ic (adj.)
    
    Well, you did say *anyone*.
    
    E Grace not Bonnie

    Shows what I know (not much).
    
    Re -2: Sorry about using the gender-besodden term "fraternizing." If
           it's any consolation, I refer to my twin step-daughters as
           "sororal twins" (like in "sorority" -- get it?)
    
    - Hoyt (in an unusually light mood)

    Hoyt,
    
    the female hormones are estrogen and progesterone...
    
    tho women have small amounts of testosterone and other androgens
    (androgen is a collective noun).
    
    Bonnie

Re: .169
    
>>.168>    to -mike z:  I speak for me, not for all men, all women, or all

>	Then why do you say "men", "they", and "their" and not "I",
>    "I", and "my" in the following:

>>.153>    Men don't want women to go to war because they don't want their
>>.153>    personal property (women) damaged.
    
    In my opinion, men don't want women to go to war because they don't
    want their personal property (women) damaged. This is not my own
    personal belief.
    
    As usual, you are nit-picking with little substance. Again, this is my
    opinion.
    
    Bruce
    

    Thank you, Bonnie, for your clear explanation and for saving me the
    effort.
    
    I hope nobody got their androgens up over this.
    
    Bruce

    re:500.153
    
    You say that we learned a lesson in Vietnam about women.  That 85
    pound (Vietnamese) women killed 200 pound American soldiers and that proves
    that women are equally adept at being efficient killing machines as
    men.  
    
    I saw my best friend killed in Vietnam by an 11 year old boy with an
    AK-47.  By your reasoning we should draft 11 year olds because they too
    can kill when threatened.
    
    My point is that of course women can kill.  But just because they
    haven't been involved in combat doesn't mean they are less adept at
    torture and murder than men.  Women of almost all cultures have at one
    time or another displayed the tendency to be most barbaric.  Should we
    then cultivate that in our society?  Should we, as you and others have
    said, teach them physical conflict from an early age?  I've been to
    war.  I've seen and done things that most civilized people would not
    tolerate.  I want it to end.  Throwing women in the cesspool will not
    turn it into a clear mountain lake!
    
    pb  
    

 .177 >You say that we learned a lesson in Vietnam about women. 
    
    I said nothing about learning a lesson in Vietnam about women. 
    If we learned the right lesson there would be no wars. That has nothing
    at all to do with whether women are capable of serving in combat.
    
    Bruce
    

    >                               ...Should we, as you and others have
    > said, teach them physical conflict from an early age?  I've been to
    > war.  I've seen and done things that most civilized people would not
    > tolerate.  I want it to end.  Throwing women in the cesspool will not
    > turn it into a clear mountain lake!
      
    Well, then you have a clear path; you should work towards the goal
    of a society that teaches violence to NONE of its members.  If you
    object to women being taught physical conflict because of how horrible
    it is, you object to it for men on the same basis.  Are you working
    towards that goal?
    
    If not, then we have an inconsistency here.  Some of us regretably
    acknowledge that for as long as men are taught to be violent by our
    culture, women will be endangered by some of those men.  A step to
    reducing this danger would be ensuring that women grow up with the
    abilities and the training and the experience to defend themselves.
    This would also better suit them to combat roles.  Its an awful
    choice, to choose that path for society that increases physical
    conflict.  But it must be regarded as a valid path, for until the
    culture renounces violence as acceptable training for men, it is
    necessary for the defensive training of women.
    
    This necessity leaves a bad taste in my mouth, though.
    
    DougO

    re: .153/178
    
    >Women in occupied countries have always played important
    >resistence roles.  During World War I and II they helped escaped
    >prisoners of wars, provided valuable information and often
    >performed sabotage.  We learned this to our sorrow in Vietnam when
    >many 200-pound American male soldiers were killed by 85-pound
    >Vietnam women.
    
    These are your words.  "We learned . . . in Vietnam"
    
    re:  500.179
    
    I am working very hard to realize a society that teaches violence to
    none of it's members.
    
    I believe each entity on the planet has the right to defend itself. 
    Women have every right to 'return in kind' to an attacker.  To me this
    means that if a man attacks a woman she has the right to stop him.  If
    the only way she can stop him is to kill him, she has that right.  I
    believe that we should teach young girls, as well as young boys that no
    one has the right to exploit them.  However, self defense is much
    different than war.  Who (not what) is being threatened in the middle
    East?  The hostages?  We have hostages of one kind or another in many
    other countries including Vietnam.  We aren't spending a billion
    dollars a month there.
    
    We did not bomb Hiroshima out of self-defense.  The Japanese Army and
    Navy were defeated.  To me this was wrong.  Men, women and children
    were killed, scarred and poisoned.  Who did they threaten?
    
    pb
    

                 -< Why men only for active combat duty >-
                   Just look at the lighter side of this,imagine
     a country with women dominating active combat force        
     and they go to war while half of the combat force is on
     Maternity leave. I don't think any Government wants to
     take that kind of risk .
    
        Has any one thought of this ????
        I read this in a college magzine long time back.
    
    
    JM
       

    Re: .181
    
    I don't consider that "the lighter side" at all.  That's the same
    sort of thinking that has been applied against women in business
    for years, what with employers asking female applicants whether or
    not they used contraception, or whether they planned to have children.
    It also indicates a rather dim view of women's sense of responsibility,
    not to mention a rather exaggerated notion of pregnancy rates.
    
    				Steve

>Note 500.164           Why are MEN always the combatants?!            164 of 174
>FRAIS3::LIESENBERG "Kierkegaard was right..."        22 lines   7-SEP-1990 08:52
>                    -< Real men care a damn for heroes... >-
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    re .162 "...when push comes to shove in this (your own) country...
>             it will be too late..."
>    
>    Come on. Now THAT'S exactly the attitude that allows politicians to
>    butcher thousands of young innocent people that don't have a damn thing
>    to win or lose in the whole sorry conflict.
>    
>    My "own country" (stern look at the national flag with a manly tear in
>    the eye here..)...spare me, you won't ever get me to fight for "a
>    country" if I have a passport left to duck the draft. If you think I'll
>    ever expose my neck for some obscure politics you're terribly wrong.
>    I won't ever fight for a flag.
>    I'd always fight like a lion when something that is dear and close to
>    me is in danger. There I'd know what I fight for.
>    
    YOU come on! That kind of thinking has caused us many problems. If our
    forefathers had taken the attitude that NOTHING was worth fighting for,
    we would still be a British colony. If a 130 years ago people had
    decided this, we would have 2 countries, one with aparthied. If 50
    years ago people had thought this we would be all speaking German today
    and not very freely.
    
    You cannot fight a war in your own country. Witness S. Vietnam and the
    US with the 'war' on drugs. If you fight for any length of time and
    with any kind of modern weapons, you will have no country worth
    fighting for left.
    
    
>    I think it was reply .6 that stated that the effort should be made in
>    preventing men from going to war, and not in allowing women to join in.
>    That's the message.
>    
>    ...Paul
>    
    As long as there are 2 people on this planet, they will fight. You only
    have to look at animals to see that. If we are supposedly above this,
    then do you deny Darwin and believe in a supreme being AKA God?
    
    Steve
    
    RE weapon size usage and weight:
    
    The analogy of using the largest weapons i.e. nukes is riduclous and
    you know it. A 48 pound packs still weight 48 pounds. All other infantry
    weapons weigh more than your average infantry weapon. Machine guns,
    motars, and large shells.
                                          

    re 183:
    
    Steve,
    
    what you say, at first sight, sounds very moving, very romantic, very
    idealistic...you appeal to your country's tradition, to the heroes that
    shaped your nation, to the "heritage" of your stern forfathers, etc.
    
    You believe in things that are worth fighting for, like freedom, like
    human rights. I don't want to start a debate here if the Independence
    war was REALLY necessary, or driven by economical interests, too, so the
    rich planters (who did NOT stand in the first combat line) had less
    taxes to pay...or tell you that Gandhi achieved the independence of
    India without shedding innecessary blood...Personally, I believe there
    are better ways of preventing injustice of taking place than fighting
    wars...
    
    The point is that your beliefs in abstract things like your country's
    honour and "freedom" make you manipulable. Politicians don't share your
    idealistic notions, it's a fact, and they are ready to misuse people
    with nationalistic zeal like you at the first opportunity... 
    
    Look, you talk about your Independence war, which might have been
    fought for a worthy cause (though personally I don't mind whom I pay
    taxes to..)...and you dare to justify the engagement of your
    troops in the Gulf region with that heritage of "U.S. for freedom"?
    Wake up, Steve, YOUR beliefs I sincerely respect, but you are being
    manipulated and misused by less honourable politicians who'll let you
    fight for what THEY claim is a matter of national honour, but in
    reality is nothing but a bunch of economic interests.
    
    Answer me: WHY didn't your government intervene when Iraq attacked Iran
    eleven years ago? WHY didn't your forces act when MILLIONS of people
    where being butchered by the Red Khmers in Cambodsha (hell, somebody
    correct the English spelling..)? WHY didn't the Western nations
    intervene against Hitler when he occupied Czecholovakia, but waited
    until he had signed a pact with Stalin and occupied Poland? Why the
    hell does nobody care for bloody civil wars in the third world, but
    just keeps the wars going by supplying the beligerant sides with
    expensive weapons? Why have the US regularly supported dictatorial
    governments throughout Middle and South America, and not the people's
    movements? Why, why,why...??? We could go on like this forever.
    
    Admittedly, the U.S. has been on the "right" side in most of the
    conflicts it intervened...but The U.S. has lost it's political
    innocence after World War I, and its inhabitants should stop dreaming
    about defending democracy all over the world...you are NOT doing that,
    you are fighting for $$$$, even if L.B.Johnson, Reagan or Bush will try
    to tell you differently...
    
    Wake up, idealists of the world! You're being misused everywhere. There
    are better ways of defending your ideals than getting yourself killed
    in the Arabian dessert or anything the like. I think you have better
    things to contribute to humanity than leaving a blood soaked Marine
    uniform as the only evidence you ever existed behind...
    
    I'm almost positive than most deceased "heroes of war" would turn in
    their graves out of pure disgust when they see how young, idealistic
    and immensely DUMB young guys are obediently walking into their deaths
    in the naive belief they fight for a worthy cause. The dead would
    probably know better, but they can't tell...
    
    After World War I, the German war veterans thought they had fought the
    most grueling war ever, the one that would end all wars, and they
    thought they owed it to their dead friends to create a pacifist
    movement. It's a pitty the message tends to get last across generations
    and you always end up having the same young, dumb people ready to
    sacrifice themselves again.
    
    And please don't compare anything like war to Darwin or to some process
    in nature. NO animal would ever kill another one as uselessly as
    mankind does in war. No animal would kill out of fanatism or
    hatred...that argument is just too worn out by fascist movements, Steve,
    be careful when you use it over here in Germany, it could cost you many
    a sympathy!
    
    I could go on arguing against war and militarism forever, it's really
    a subject that tends to upset me. I believe war is NOT a method to make
    this world better. I believe NO cause justifies war. I believe as long
    as people think they can substitute ethical arguments with the force of
    arms, humankind will remain the backward collective of unfulfiled
    potential it is. But not for very long...we're just too destructive to
    keep behaving like australopithecoids...
    
    If God exists, humankind surely makes him sick.
    
    ...Paul
    
    P.S.: I'm sorry if I offended someone's beliefs, that was not my
          intention, I believe in heated discussions, but not  in 
          intolerance. I respect people that have a strong opinion that
          is based on independent thinking, I view it as pitiful when
          people just repeat some stuff they've been told often enough like
          parrots and they crumble in any serious debate. I just want to
          contribute with another opinion, even if it may sound treacherous
          to national interests by your American standards. 
    
     

    re .183
    
    Steve,
    
    just one more thing...please name me just ONE instance in human history
    where pacifism constituted a "problem"...when it hampered progress or
    stood in the way of a "worthy" cause. I'm not aware of any.
    
    As a last thing, I'd want to congratulate the "good guys" all over the
    world (the ones with the white horses) for having found a genuine "bad
    guy" like Hussein (he even wears a black hat sometimes...) to focus
    their righteous zeal on. Really, Hussein's just what you needed after
    those long and awkward years where your causes raised many an eyebrow
    among political observers. No more having to justify why you provide
    Contras with arms or fail to bomb the only house you wanted to hit in
    Tripolis, or stuck to Pinochet 'til the end, eh?
    
    Again, "good guys", sincere congratulations from
    
    ...Paul

I don't have much patience for the suggestion that the solution to
male combat fatalities is the avoidance of war. Of course, that's a
laudable goal, but folk have been lauding it for millenia without
effect. True, it's a different world than it used to be. Our power to
ruin the biosphere is greater than ever before. World-wide transport
and communications systems make the concept a single world government
more feasible. Until the political geography is radically changed,
however, there will be Hussein's and Bush's ready to send in the
troops. In the meanwhile, lots and lots of men are being killed. 

I'm trying to imagine the actual impact of a all-female infantry
division. I see one major effect: I think that gender rivalry might
promote heroic behavior. In the present military culture, there is a
lot of rivalry between different batallions. "The weak-sister Golden
Eagles couldn't take this hill, but WE'RE the Fighting Llamas, RIGHT
GUYS?!" I think this could get even more pronounced. The military
could promote this by having a crack troop of females who are sent in
when the boys fail. "If we don't take this hill, boys, they're going
to send in the Fifth Armored Amazons next!" The "boys" would be highly
motivated (by all those androgens, right?). The probably result would
be a more effective military, and more male deaths. 

What would the effect be in the Middle East? An important feature of
Arab culture is the role of women. No offense to our Arab siblings:
Moslem women have extremely subordinate status, so far as I can tell.
I think we could expect Arab women to respond two ways to the reality
of a female fighting force. Most women would respond conservatively,
reviling the bare-armed U.S. hussies. Some would get their
consciousness raised, though, and demand more egalitarian treatment.
The impact of females at the front might be a feminist revolution at
home. And THAT might be an important step toward eventual world peace.

- Hoyt

    re .186
    
division. I see one major effect: I think that gender rivalry might
>promote heroic behavior. In the present military culture, there is a
>lot of rivalry between different batallions. "The weak-sister Golden
>Eagles couldn't take this hill, but WE'RE the Fighting Llamas, RIGHT
>GUYS?!" I think this could get even more pronounced. The military
>could promote this by having a crack troop of females who are sent in
>when the boys fail. "If we don't take this hill, boys, they're going
>to send in the Fifth Armored Amazons next!" The "boys" would be highly
>motivated (by all those androgens, right?). The probably result would
>be a more effective military, and more male deaths. 
    
    This is exactly what happened when the Isrialie Army experimented
    with femaile comabtants, BUT WITH HE ENEMY.  "Look you bunch
    of *&^%#!@#$%^&&*# those are WOMEN holding that hill.  Are you
    going to let a bunch of #&*^&%^$%# women beat you?".  Isrialie
    casualties skyrocketed.
    
    It would be nice if everyone played by *our* rules, but alas...
    
    fred();

    re .186 + .187
    
    No...I can't believe you can "motivate" attacking male soldiers  any
    further by telling them it's women defending on the other side...
    First, because I doubt men that face an enemy that is liable to shoot
    their brains out can be motivated AT ALL, they'd rather get out of
    there, no matter if it's men or women on the other side.
    Second, I believe you're generalizing a very personal few of a
    competition among genders...personally, I couldn't care less if it's a
    man or a woman that is more successful than me in the job,
    humiliating me in a squash match or - even less - waiting for me 
    with a machine gun on the top of the hill.
    And the thought that ANYBODY, male or female, is going to put his life
    on the stake to demonstrate his gender is the "superior" one sounds
    absolutely bizarre to me.
    I don't think the rivalry ia half as harsh as you put it, and even less
    in a rock-bottom motivation environment like a combat ground. You'd
    just think about survival, and not about giving it to the "girls".
    ...Paul
    

    Re -1: Paul
    
    To our collective tragedy, you vastly underestimate the naivity of
    18-year-old males. Practically none of us grew up with a pacifist
    father citing the horrors of war. We watch our war movies, in which the
    nameless undeveloped characters fall on the initial assault, and the
    heroes survive to the glorious ending or beyond. Slogans take root in
    our forebrains and drive out perception and thoughtfulness: "Sodomize
    Saddam!" repeated in a loud voice twenty times equals one year of NY
    Times editorials. This was driven home the time I sat in a Somerville
    bar (circa 1979) listening to the rafters shake to the refrain "Kill
    Khomeini." Despite myself, I found myself looking about for a weapon
    and an enemy. Remember: civilization and the cerebrum are only about a
    quarter inch thick; mostly we're beasts of the forest, with teeth.
    
    And isn't your life full of rivalry between men and women, and men
    strutting around with their colorful parts inflated before the women? I
    have three teenage daughters, so maybe I see more of this than most.
    
    I just read the most recent Tom Clancy book, "Clear and Present Danger"
    (or something like that). THERE's a book that appeals to boys' taste
    for toys (like laser-guided smart bombs -- ooh, neato). The story
    features a crack light infantryman, extremely skillful at woodcraft,
    silently moving through the jungle scouting the enemy. This guy's main
    requirement was judgement and patience. He was also 5'6" (someone else
    carried the big machine gun). It seems emininently like a role at which
    women would excel.
    
    - Hoyt

    re -1:
    
    When it comes to impressing the female you're absolutely right, we're
    no better than a gorilla in rutting-time, even though some guys switch
    the strategy from muscle exposure to witty conversation and being
    oh-so-sensitive, it's all part of the same game. It's displaying whose
    figurative antlers are the bigger ones, and always will be.
    But that's an innocent enough game that is absolutely enjoyable when
    you look through it, but I'd think the motivation for playing it would
    be somehow missing in the thick of the battleground...
    First, it ought to dawn even on your "androgen driven gung-ho" that the
    women on the other side will not fall in a rapture when he comes in,
    slaughtering them, or getting some vital parts of himself shot
    away (guess women would know where a shot hurts most [1]), and, second,
    the women "at home" that, according to your argumentation, the guy
    wants to impress won't exactly view it as an act of heroism when they
    hear he spent his time in war blasting away females...
    I strongly feel that gender roles get lost in the battle field, I'm
    sure you'd have better and more urgent things to care about in such a
    situation...
    ...Paul 
    Note [1]:
    This thought surely ought to be carried a little further. I we'd
    adhere to Freud, male soldiers ought to be scared stiff by the prospect
    of their worst c#str#tion fears being on the best way to be
    materialized by the giant-scissors-swinging army of feminist women
    standing in front of him...a surely terrifying psychological factor not
    to be forgotten giving the female army a valuable mental edge on any
    leatherneck!                                                     

    re .184
>    re 183:
>    
>    Steve,
>    
>    what you say, at first sight, sounds very moving, very romantic, very
>    idealistic...you appeal to your country's tradition, to the heroes that
>    shaped your nation, to the "heritage" of your stern forfathers, etc.
>    
>    You believe in things that are worth fighting for, like freedom, like
>    human rights. I don't want to start a debate here if the Independence
>    war was REALLY necessary, or driven by economical interests, too, so the
>    rich planters (who did NOT stand in the first combat line) had less
>    taxes to pay
    
    George Washington was a RICH planter and there were many others
    Jefferson, Hamilton, etc The American revolution was somewhat unique in
    that MANY rich joined/ lead the poor. Now if you say that they took
    fewer risks, let me tell you they would have been swinging from some
    tree if we had lost.
    
>...or tell you that Gandhi achieved the independence of
>    India without shedding innecessary blood...Personally, I believe there
>    are better ways of preventing injustice of taking place than fighting
>    wars...
>    
    Gandhi was lucky. The British empire was collapsing. I can name many
    more instances where passive resistance failed; German Jews, Chinese in
    Tiannamen square, Palistinains in the Gaza strip etc.
    
    
    
>    The point is that your beliefs in abstract things like your country's
>    honour and "freedom" make you manipulable. Politicians don't share your
>    idealistic notions, it's a fact, and they are ready to misuse people
>    with nationalistic zeal like you at the first opportunity... 
>    
    You are only manipulative if YOU let them. I could make the same
    argument for you. Your father has brainwashed you to believe that
    nothing is worth fighting for. He has led you to believe that the
    passive way will prevail. You can now bw manipulated to do ANYTHING to
    prevent war or violence. This palys right into a bully's hand. If you
    don't XXX than I will do violence on you... Talk about idealistic
    notions!
    
    
>    Look, you talk about your Independence war, which might have been
>    fought for a worthy cause (though personally I don't mind whom I pay
>    taxes to..)...and you dare to justify the engagement of your
>    troops in the Gulf region with that heritage of "U.S. for freedom"?
    
    Whoa. Where did you get this? My proposal is that we have a problem
    with 1 (one) person over there. Eliminate this one person (in ways to
    give the next jerk that takes over pause) instead of killing thousands
    of innocent civilians and soldiers.  My solution is illegal. In 1973 ro
    so the US Congress passed a law that forbids 'taking out' of anyone.
    Romantics and idealists at work. Seeing the world as they would like it
    instead of how it IS. And don't give the old abuse story.
    
>    Wake up, Steve, YOUR beliefs I sincerely respect, but you are being
>    manipulated and misused by less honourable politicians who'll let you
>    fight for what THEY claim is a matter of national honour, 
    
    I assume you live in Germany or if you live in the US, you must live in
    a monastary. Nowhere in the US (that I have heard) is the 'US honor' at
    stake here. We have a bully pure and simple. A bully who is not affraid
    to attack anyone when they are perceived as weak. A bully who will use
    any tactic or weapon against pacificist civilians or military enemys.
    
    >but in reality is nothing but a bunch of economic interests.
    
>    Answer me: WHY didn't your government intervene when Iraq attacked Iran
>    eleven years ago? WHY didn't your forces act when MILLIONS of people
>    where being butchered by the Red Khmers in Cambodsha (hell, somebody
>    correct the English spelling..)? 
    
    I did not agree with this. If you are German, WHY did YOUR country sell
    equipment to Libya to make chemical weapons?  See, ALL countries do
    somethings that someone else may find fault with
    
    Why didn't Germany or Israel speak out against what happened in
    Cambodia. THEY more than any other two countries should be super
    sensitive about that.
    
    
    
    >WHY didn't the Western nations
>    intervene against Hitler when he occupied Czecholovakia, but waited
>    until he had signed a pact with Stalin and occupied Poland? 
    
    Why indeed. One word in the US and Britian in the 30's PACIFICSM
    period. Idealism, pacificism and their own ecomonic problems.
    
    
    >Why the
>    hell does nobody care for bloody civil wars in the third world, but
>    just keeps the wars going by supplying the beligerant sides with
>    expensive weapons? 
    
    See Libya above. There are other countries that sell/give weapons away.
    The reason many countries want weapons should be obvious from the Iraq
    attacking Kawait situation. Some countries think that there just might
    be a bully in the neighborhood.
    
    >Why have the US regularly supported dictatorial
>    governments throughout Middle and South America, and not the people's
>    movements? Why, why,why...??? We could go on like this forever.
>    
    The US or world should impose democracy and our ideals on the rest of
    the world? The US and the world tend to support the status-quo.
    
>    Admittedly, the U.S. has been on the "right" side in most of the
>    conflicts it intervened...but The U.S. has lost it's political
>    innocence after World War I, and its inhabitants should stop dreaming
>    about defending democracy all over the world...
    
    This paragraph is in DIRECT contradiction to yours above. Dont' support
    dictators... and not people's movements....stop dreaming about 
    defending democracy....
    
    >you are NOT doing that,
>    you are fighting for $$$$, even if L.B.Johnson, Reagan or Bush will try
>    to tell you differently...
>    
    You chastise me/us about not saying something about Czecksolavkia (sp)
    at the beginning of this note and reject that same action you advocated
    when we apply it to Iraq. MOST of the world sees Saddam for what he is;
    A bully. Hitler was a bully that was not stopped in time.
    
    
>    Wake up, idealists of the world! You're being misused everywhere. 
    
    I could say the sem for you
    
    >There
>    are better ways of defending your ideals than getting yourself killed
>    in the Arabian dessert or anything the like. 
    
    I agree. See 'taking out' above
    
    >I think you have better
>    things to contribute to humanity than leaving a blood soaked Marine
>    uniform as the only evidence you ever existed behind...
>    
    Me too.
    
>    I'm almost positive than most deceased "heroes of war" would turn in
>    their graves out of pure disgust when they see how young, idealistic
>    and immensely DUMB young guys are obediently walking into their deaths
>    in the naive belief they fight for a worthy cause. The dead would
>    probably know better, but they can't tell...
>    
    They would die again if their dying to stop Germany or Japan was all
    for naught because a new bully was let free to gobble up countries.
    'Those who faile to learn the lessons of history.....'
    
>    After World War I, the German war veterans thought they had fought the
>    most grueling war ever, the one that would end all wars, and they
>    thought they owed it to their dead friends to create a pacifist
>    movement. It's a pitty the message tends to get last across generations
>    and you always end up having the same young, dumb people ready to
>    sacrifice themselves again.
>    
    Many German veterans thought that they had been stabbed in the back by
    the civilians and their government.
    
    The German generals and many of the officers and soldiers who fought in
    WWII also fought in WWI. Pacifists?
    
>    And please don't compare anything like war to Darwin or to some process
>    in nature. 
    
    Animals DO compete for mating rights in many species. They fight and
    ARE injured in many instances. The ones who come in 2nd must be very
    frustrated.
    
    >NO animal would ever kill another one as uselessly as
>    mankind does in war. No animal would kill out of fanatism or
>    hatred...that argument is just too worn out by fascist movements, Steve,
>    be careful when you use it over here in Germany, it could cost you many
>    a sympathy!
    
    Be careful over here to link the US with all the problems with the
    world. If it wern't for the US, Germany would not be in the excellent
    financial and economic condition it is.
>    
>    I could go on arguing against war and militarism forever, it's really
>    a subject that tends to upset me. I believe war is NOT a method to make
>    this world better. I believe NO cause justifies war. I believe as long
>    as people think they can substitute ethical arguments with the force of
>    arms, humankind will remain the backward collective of unfulfiled
>    potential it is. But not for very long...we're just too destructive to
>    keep behaving like australopithecoids...
    
    The world seems to be using ethical arguments with Saddam, to no avail.
>    
>    If God exists, humankind surely makes him sick.
>    
>    ...Paul
>    
    I agree whole heartedly.
    
    
>    P.S.: I'm sorry if I offended someone's beliefs, that was not my
>          intention, I believe in heated discussions, but not  in 
>          intolerance. I respect people that have a strong opinion that
>          is based on independent thinking, I view it as pitiful when
>          people just repeat some stuff they've been told often enough like
>          parrots and they crumble in any serious debate. I just want to
>          contribute with another opinion, even if it may sound treacherous
>          to national interests by your American standards. 
>    
>     
    You didn't offend my beliefs because you are way off the mark on them.
    You should not be so quick to judge all Americans by what you think
    they think.
    
    Steve

    re. 191
    
    Steve,
    
    you got me wrong, my arguments weren't directed against the U.S., my
    intention was to demonstrate that the U.S. -like ANY other country-
    hasn't been fighting around the world out of altruism, but they always
    took on arms when $ were on the stake. I never meant to say the German
    government is an inch better, on the contrary, I'm the first to say
    that Kohl and his lot are some of the most disgusting and corrupt
    persons to ever make it into world politics. Kohl's an example to the
    damage that can be done to the international image of a country if its
    politicians are only puppets of the nation's big economical
    institutions...
    The Independence war was an economical war, just as the civil war or
    any conflict that has ever been fought on earth. You can bet that
    wherever more than 1000 people where killed in a fight or riot, there
    was some economical interest behind. Show me just one case of a war
    that broke out because of idealistic reasons...not even the crusades...
    The truth is: the big fishies make profits with war while the small
    ones cut themselves into sizeable pieces believing they fight for some
    beautiful ideal...
    Look, I'm sure you'll find some idealistic Iraquies that stand there in
    the belief they are fighting for a worthy cause, like unifying the
    Arabic nations under one leader, the ever lasting dream of the Islam,
    and therefore fighting the U.S. for trying to keep the Islamic nations
    powerless by doing every thing to separate them....hey, I'm not saying
    they are right, but when you start with idealism you always have two
    sides of the coin, each of them firm believers that they are
    right...and somehow they are, if you take into account ethnic
    background, education, religion, everything blended with some
    brainwashing. You can't expect everybody to measure the world by our
    western standards, there are other cultures we have to RESPECT, no
    matter how backward and benighted they seem to us...maybe they'll
    evolve just like our countries have done...
    Our free and enlightened countries always had the attitude that as soon
    as you show the poor benighted creatures in the third world how neat it
    is to have a car and vote for your government and have a TV set at home
    they'll just HAVE to see how backward they've been and assume our life
    style. We're just so damn convinced that our ways are the better ones
    that we take the right to offend their traditions, occupy their
    countries or build golf courses on their burial grounds, it's all the
    same thing, you know...
    And that's what we're doing in the Gulf, again. We've got no business
    left there, let 'em find their own identity, history will show them if
    they're right or wrong, and they'll learn their lessons. You will only
    make it worse by intervening.
    Yes, Hussein's a swine by our standards, which hasn't prevented our
    governments of providing him with arms and industrial goods as long as
    he paid for them and didn't bother us economically. How odd that now,
    when he holds more oil in his hands, our leaders discover the Quest for
    freedom of Kuwait people in their hearts again. I'm no half-wit, and
    they won't fool me...
    It wasn't German veterans that raised the so called "back stabbing
    legend", it was the German extreme right movement backed by the
    PROFESSIONAL, traditional Prussian officer corps and generals that
    didn't want to lose their face, and they were lucky to get heavy
    support from the West to prevent Germany of becoming communist at the
    beginning of the Weimar era, those were damn turbulent hours in German
    history. Hadn't anyone supported the German right wing...a Third reich
    would never have been possible then...I'm drifting away, I just wanted
    to say that there are hundreds of examples of German WWI veterans being
    killed during pacifist or even communist (for they were the opposing
    force to the Prussian militarism) demonstrations. It's not true the
    German veterans raised the legend of having been stabbed in the back.
    Drifting again.
    No, The only thing I want to say, Steve, is that, yes, I'm a product of
    my education, too, and maybe I'm manipulable, too, but at least a
    manipulated Paul will never start shooting at anyone else for the sake
    of dirty and intransparent politics as the manipulated Steves of the
    world will do. I'll never do any harm with my attitude.
    And believe me, the Husseins of the world would be absolutely helpless
    if they didn't have a bunch of misused, idealistic and manipulable
    folks to rely on.
    If you want to think it was the pacifists that prevented the world of
    acting against Hitler in time you're wrong. Again, it was economical
    entanglements and nothing else (Germany was still paying a tidy sum in
    reparations to England and France by that time, and some more stuff).
    Besides, the Third Reich would have crumbled in itself sooner or
    later due to active and passive resistance. Not saying the second world
    war wasn't for a worthy cause, just saying there are ALWAYS other
    alternatives in history.
    Again, my ramblings are NOT directed against the U.S., but generally at
    the way we're educated and at how naive most folks are in allowing
    politicians to use them shamelessly.
    ...Paul  

RE .192 Paul:    
>    The Independence war was an economical war, just as the civil war or
>    any conflict that has ever been fought on earth. You can bet that
>    wherever more than 1000 people where killed in a fight or riot, there
>    was some economical interest behind. Show me just one case of a war
>    that broke out because of idealistic reasons...
    
    The American Civil war was not over ideals? Sorry YOU ARE WRONG. Who
    would start an economic war knowing you were the vast underdog
    economically? Knowing some/most of your economic base would be subject
    to ruin. Did you ever hear of 'state's rights?'
    
    
>if you take into account ethnic
>    background, education, religion, everything blended with some
>    brainwashing. You can't expect everybody to measure the world by our
>    western standards, there are other cultures we have to RESPECT, no
>    matter how backward and benighted they seem to us...maybe they'll
>    evolve just like our countries have done...
>    Our free and enlightened countries always had the attitude that as soon
>    as you show the poor benighted creatures in the third world how neat it
>    is to have a car and vote for your government and have a TV set at home
>    they'll just HAVE to see how backward they've been and assume our life
>    style. We're just so damn convinced that our ways are the better ones
>    that we take the right to offend their traditions, occupy their
>    countries or build golf courses on their burial grounds, it's all the
>    same thing, you know...
    
    I agree with you!
    
>    And that's what we're doing in the Gulf, again. We've got no business
>    left there, let 'em find their own identity, history will show them if
>    they're right or wrong, and they'll learn their lessons. You will only
>    make it worse by intervening.
    
    Should Britian, France, the US and USSR have taken that attitude with
    Hitler? Come on, No one would agree with that.
    
>    No, The only thing I want to say, Steve, is that, yes, I'm a product of
>    my education, too, and maybe I'm manipulable, too, but at least a
>    manipulated Paul will never start shooting at anyone else for the sake
>    of dirty and intransparent politics as the manipulated Steves of the
>    world will do. I'll never do any harm with my attitude.
    
    I beg to differ. You 'will never do any harm?' How about professing
    "peace in our time" or 'peace at any price?' Harm? Let me ask you; do
    you lock your house doors and windows? do you lock your car? Are there
    places you would not go alone at night?  If like most people, you would
    answer yes to one or more of these questions, you do so because of FEAR
    of the consequences on NOT taking DEFENSIVE precautions. It is the SAME
    thing with countries and peoples of the world. Some. like Kawait have
    oil that a theif might want to steal.
    	Harm? Yes and no. Hopefully people will see through such ideals and
    treat life and the world with reality.
    
    Manipulative? A better choice would be blind. I see the world as it
    could/should be, but I realize that reality dictates that I treat it as
    it IS.
    
    
    
>    If you want to think it was the pacifists that prevented the world of
>    acting against Hitler in time you're wrong. Again, it was economical
>    entanglements and nothing else (Germany was still paying a tidy sum in
>    reparations to England and France by that time, and some more stuff).
>    Besides, the Third Reich would have crumbled in itself sooner or
>    later due to active and passive resistance. 
    
    Who else (historian etc) agrees with you on this? This is non-sense!
    The Third Reich would have lasted a good long time. My hobby is WWII
    history and I can tell you that Pacifism in the US and Britain were
    MAJOR conmtributors to the rise of Hitler. Pacifism in Germany allowed
    him to continue his rise and some of the things he/they did.
    
    
    >Not saying the second world
>    war wasn't for a worthy cause, just saying there are ALWAYS other
>    alternatives in history.
    
    WHAT alternative is there to a determined bully? Please tell me one (1)
    thing pacifacistic that could have been done to stop Hitler. Same for
    Saddam?
    
    
    
>    Again, my ramblings are NOT directed against the U.S., but generally at
>    the way we're educated and at how naive most folks are in allowing
>    politicians to use them shamelessly.
    
    Most/many people I talk to here have a healthy disrespect for
    politicians. This is good. Many politicians could not get a real job 
    anyways. So knowing this makes many/most skeptical of 'political' motives. 
    
    Paul. You would have better luck (in the present situation in Iraq) if
    you stated that the US/world will not stand for higher oil prices. That
    all citizens of the world are selfish. That they don't want their
    countries sent into economic decline/recession/depression because of
    some bully in the mid east. Of course you are open to the argument that
    the OPEC countries WERE willing to sell their oil to the US/world at the
    past prices and that ONE greedy bully wasn't satisfied and 'didn't have
    the votes' to change things 'by the rules.'
    
    Steve

    Well, we seem to have beaten this horse to a well-deserved death. I
    must express my joy at the level of interest and intellect shown by all
    of you repliers; it's been enlightening as well as entertaining. I plan
    to reread the entire string and learn SOMETHING (8^) as a result.
    
    Thanks, Hoyt (the basenoter)

    re all the mentions of Ghandi and India:
    	The "nonviolent" approach in India resulted in slaughter of
    civilians that makes most declared wars look like a picnic.  Read
    Freedom at Midnight.
    						John
      

    re .195:
    
    It's difficult to keep a nation's lunatic "idealists" under control. Of
    course there was slaughter in India, I can't recall saying that it was
    a merry tale of peace. But it could have been immensely worse,
    something like the Taiping rebellion in China last century (the
    bloodiest civil war ever fought, unknown to most people)...
    
    Paul's final statement:
    
    Hoyt is right, we've stretched this to the extreme, and thanks to
    our VMS editor I'm just seing my arguments edited and bounced back with
    some keen half-truth (no doubt based on some renowned source like "The
    Muppets' Guide to World History") appended to them, and not any new 
    points being made... :-}
    
    Whoever's telling me I don't know my little historian should try to
    picture me at midnight in my studio, among thousands of books and some
    documents retrieved from the secret archives of all countries, reading
    by dim candlelight and no doubt finding my way into the eternal
    questions of men....did Atlantis exist? Is some celestial force leading 
    the fate and thus the history of humankind? Dunno, but if yes He's 
    surely making a terrible hash of it and He could do a darn lot better
    by simply keeping his hands in his pockets...
    Seriously, Steve, I studied history for some time before taking on 
    transistors, and even though you have read your D.Irving (whom I
    loath), some of your arguments stand on shaky ground and they are no 
    doubt the consequence of singing some star-related national anthem 
    every morning in school for too many years... :-)
    
    This surely was an interesting note, just as Hoyt I'll print it out
    and read it over (probably I'll need an Alka Selzer afterwards, but
    it seems worth the risk)...
    
    ...Paul                

    No, I can't bear this "excellent comments" being the last reply of this
    note, for the comments have obvious gaps in their reasoning, defenders
    of the country tend to "forget" historical examples that don't suit
    them.
    Civil War: So why did they start by an ECONOMICAL demonstration like the
    Boston Tea Party, and write the Constitution (addmittedly a very good
    one influenced by Franklin and co.) when they were in the thick of the
    war? Check dates, Steve. The reason were the high taxes being
    paid to England, and the few investions England did back in North
    America. They were NOT fighting for your Constitution from the first
    day, for it didn't exist! That goes for the leaders, what the poor
    folks in the battleground were fighting for we don't have any means to
    know now.
    
    *** BUT ***
    As for Pacifists being chicken that don't achieve a thing in
    history...I'm not very religious myself, but I must admit the
    Christian religion has been quite successful...would you think all your
    Saints and martyrs were damn cowards for allowing themselves being
    chewed apart by lions in the Roman's circenses? Don't you thing it may
    have add a bit of credibility to the Christian religion, and allowed it
    to grow most impressingly in the early centuries of Christianity? Did
    you ever stop to think why the christian behaviour and their beliefs
    triumphed in a militaristic empire like the Roman one? If the
    Christians had armed themselves and fought for their beliefs, they'd
    just be another bunch of lunatics that would just make for a small
    footnote in history, you can BET on that, and it'd still be praying to
    Jupiter and Mars for us...
    
    Yes, a non-violent attitude takes longer, much longer to succeed, but a
    violent one that imposes non-popular beliefs on people will NEVER
    succeed in the long run. Historians don't write about the "would have
    beens" in history, but it's just the use of common sense that shows you
    Hitler would have never succeeded in the long term, either. Look at the
    resistance the Germans had in the Balcan area, they could've never kept
    it for long. Or they had in occupied Russia (the notion of just conquering
    it to the Archangelsk-Astrachan line was among the most backward ideas
    ever to occur to someone in the course of history). France. Italy. It
    would never have worked.
    That's why your 50000 guys in Vietnam, sad as it is, died for nothing.
    That's why soldiers in the Gulf region would die for nothing but the
    price of oil barrels for the next few years. If you believe it's worth
    it and you don't think it would be time to restructure American
    economical structures in a way that makes you less dependent on low oil
    prices it's your thing, but then you'd really belong into the dessert
    to see if you're willing to pay that price. Another 50000, Steve? For 
    a few cent per gallon? You ought to go into politics.
    ...Paul                    

    RE .198
    
>    No, I can't bear this "excellent comments" being the last reply of this
>    note, for the comments have obvious gaps in their reasoning, defenders
>    of the country tend to "forget" historical examples that don't suit
>    them.
>    Civil War: So why did they start by an ECONOMICAL demonstration like the
>    Boston Tea Party, and write the Constitution (addmittedly a very good
>    one influenced by Franklin and co.) when they were in the thick of the
>    war? Check dates, Steve. 
    
    ITEM  1           2                3               4
    
    Civil War...Boston Tea Party...Consitution...Franklin and co....
    
    It is YOU who should check dates. Item 1 has nothing to do with items
    2-4. They occured almost 100 years apart.
    
    >The reason were the high taxes being
>    paid to England, and the few investions England did back in North
>    America. They were NOT fighting for your Constitution from the first
>    day, for it didn't exist! That goes for the leaders, what the poor
>    folks in the battleground were fighting for we don't have any means to
>    know now.
    
    It is pretty well established what the poor farmers were fighting for,
    freedom.
    
    
>    *** BUT ***
>    As for Pacifists being chicken that don't achieve a thing in
>    history...
    
    Please don't attribute to me things I never
     said. (if that is what you were doing)
    
    
    
>    Yes, a non-violent attitude takes longer, much longer to succeed, but a
>    violent one that imposes non-popular beliefs on people will NEVER
>    succeed in the long run. 
    
    I agree with that. However, if we look at history, there ARE wars that
    fought _against_ what you have stated. They were fought for the
    _correct_ reasons. Hitler tried to impose 'non-popular beliefs' (what
    an understatement) on others as one example.
    
    >Historians don't write about the "would have
>    beens" in history, but it's just the use of common sense that shows you
>    Hitler would have never succeeded in the long term, either. 
    
    My reading of history and military history says that I would be
    speaking German now and not responding to you in this notes file. The
    Reich would not have lasted a 1000 years, but look at the effect the
    1000 year Reich had on the world, on you and me in only 14 or so years!
    
>   Another 50000, Steve? For a few cent per gallon? 
    
    Please reread my last (I think that was the one) reply. My theory is to
    take care of THE person causing the problem. PERIOD!  I DON'T want to
    see 1000's of US servicemen killed. I DON'T want to see 10,000's of
    Iraqi solders killed. I DON'T want to see 10,000's of innocent
    civilians (mostly Iraqi) killed. etc.
    	I know when (not if, I am not hopefull for a peaceful solution)
    push comes to shove, there will be 1,000's of deaths. Plenty to go
    around. For what? Cause ONE person (or a small group) has a problem.
    
    >You ought to go into politics.
>    ...Paul                    
    
    You never know!
    Steve
    
    BTW: the US Congress is (as far as I can tell from news reports)
    standing behind uncle George about 100%

    Steve,
    
    you adhere to a way of arguing I think is pitiful. You just re-edit my
    replies and turn one word of my mouth and then you think you've done
    it. Great.
    
    Checking dates: Oh sorry, I wrote civil war instead of Independence
    War, apologies. But you knew what I was talking about. The Tea Party
    was FIRST, and THEN you had a consitution worth fighting for. It was
    NOT the other way around, like you argued a few replies back. FIRST
    economics, THEN find the idealistic excuse to get the manipulable
    folks to put themselves between their dear leaders and a bullet.
    
    Guess you've been in some spiritualist session to know what your
    farmers were fighting for. I congratulate you for the deep insights
    into the labyrinths of the human soul, even more as the only persons
    entitled to talk about that are dead.
    
    And, yeah, your bottomline was despising people with non-violent
    approaches as not being able to accomplish anything against bullies
    (and you put Hitler and Hussein at the same level, which is the most
    deplorable example of cheap demagogics I've seen in a long time...) in
    history. How curious that the lines about the growth of Christianity
    are the first ones you ever deleted when bouncing back my arguments.
    Losing ground, Steve?
    
    Anyway, we're talking in circles, and I won't bother the other noters
    with an endless saga, enough is enough.
    
    Maybe reading Erich Maria Remarque's (should be something like this)
    "Nothing New in the Western front" and especially "The way back" (from
    the veterans returning) would calm your beligerant fervour a bit.
    
    And two answers back you absolutely said that world's economics and
    "recession" (though I don't know where you got that from) justify
    actions in the Gulf. You talked big words about being realistic and
    having to cope with the world full of scoundrels as it is. Well, tell
    that to the people that will probably be shot apart in five? days, and
    to their relatives. Allow them to have other views on the importance of
    the barrel price, yes? 
    To me, accepting as you do the "lesser" instincts of men is not
    pragmatism, but a sorry case of conformism. "We're animals, so we HAVE
    to kill each other"? Oh boy, you're shaming 4000 year of intellectual,
    cultural and philosophical (and religious) achievements, it's not THAT
    easy, excuse me. 
    You don't jump and pregnate females on every corner like a dog would
    do, so please allow me to remind you you should restrain your preying
    instincts a bit, as well.
    It's NOT ideals. It's not our instincts. That's all RUBBISH.
    It's all about MONEY.
    This is Professor Paul's last lesson on this note.
    ...Paul

    A veeeery last comment I forgot, Steve...
    
    If you really think the problem in Kuwait is with ONE person (Mr bad
    guy Hussein), oh well, that's really an indicative that you fall quite
    easily for cheap propaganda. Killing Hussein wouldn't solve anything,
    you'd only make a martyr out of him.
    I know it's  always difficult to get to grasp other cultures, but
    this really shows lack of knowledge about the Islamic culture. Hussein
    incorporates the hope to unify the Islamic nations for many people, not
    only in Iraq. It's a longing they've had for a long time, since
    Saladdin reconquered Jerusalem and gave the Crusaders the licking of
    their life (the last one, in any case). For us, it's unbelievable that
    many moslems view Hussein as a leader that is legitimate and gives them
    hope, but, even if the marines hack down half Iraq it won't solve the
    conflict in the Middle East, which isn't the person of Hussein, but a
    problem of cultures, of ethnical aspects, of education, ranging way
    back in history and passing through Israel. 
    It won't be solved by securing the oil...eerr..."liberating" Kuwait
    from the evil reign of Hussein. That's an illusion. One of your
    ideallistic soap bubbles. Be ready to see it vanish with a 
    VERY audible "pop!"...
    Now this really was the last one...
    sorry for stretching your patience, co-noters...
    ...Paul 

    RE the last 2
    
    Well it is easy for anyone, yourself or myself to sit warm and
    comfortably here and talk about the world and about letting Saddam
    create his 'greater arabian kingdom' irrespective of oil or economics.
    
    Easy and great UNLESS you are a Kawati living in Kawait. We don't have
    to worry about an invading army, food, shelter, and our now useless money...
    
    BTW  For everyone else, Paul and I have exchanged mail so this note may
         continue without this (our) discussions.
    
    
    Steve

    
    RE: last few.
    
    A pity, really.  I felt Paul had some valid points, but he was losing
    them when he tried to use his imprefect understanding of American
    history to buttress them.  Steve, on the other hand had some equally
    valid points, especially around the notion that our western history
    teaches us that would-be aggressors against our interests must be
    stopped.  Our history teaches us that the earlier agressors are
    stopped, the cheaper the cost is likely to be.
    
    The argument that our interests are economic only, and then the
    implication is made that this is less than a valid reason to go into a
    protect mode is, at best, silly.  A strong economy is a strong
    insurance policy for personal survival, you know.  When that is
    threatened, people react, as well they should.
    
    Mike
                                                 

    Re. -1
    
    Oh well, another "pragmatist" calling for Hussein's (may wild hogs mate
    on his grave) head!
    
    Tell me where my understanding of American historical facts was wrong.
    The fact that I interpret the facts differently than any of your
    educational books for stern little boys doesn't mean anything.
    
    And about the lessons of history...well, up to now we've only tried the
    intervening approach, right? We can't know how another one would work,
    although we could guess if we'd really do our historical homework. The
    lessons of history? Listen, I've talked to some of your heroic guys
    that are going to part to the dessert shortly, over here in Frankfurt,
    while they drink some of their last peaceful beers in some pub.
    THEY've learned their little historian pretty well, and know this is
    Vietnam all over again. And they have a slightly different notion on
    how vital it is to keep the barrel price way under the OPEC-guidelines.
    You ought to hear them, face to face. They know we wouldn't have to
    intervene now if we hadn't intervened influencing the region in the
    past. We're only reaping what we planted way back. Realize that,
    once for all, if you intervene once, you'll be sucked in again and
    again...
    Again, if you think it still isn't time to ask yourself why the U.S.
    economy is still so immensely dependent on a low oil price and haven't
    started any serious energy saving programs in the last 15 year (in the
    contrary, they've been capped!), you are less of a pragmatist than you
    think. You are just taking political mismanagement as a given and
    irreversible fact, and take it admiringly lightly that your young
    fellows are going to be killed and crippled shortly. Another cool
    strategist at work, eh? What's a human life as long as I can afford a
    gas for the Corvette, eh? (None too bad as rhetoric, you'll agree!)
    
    I wouldn't call accepting some sorry economical and political
    mismanagement as being "realistic" or "pragmatist"...just as being both
    politically and intellectually lazy.
    
    As long as we can cope as well as we do with starving children and
    misery in the third world, I can't quite see why we ought to be so
    over-concerned for Kuwait's freedom. As if we ever cared for it.
    And now allow me to continue this discussion via mail with Steve
    without luring me into useless counterattacks again!
    
    Goodbye, note 500!
    
    ...Paul

    re: .204 (Leisenberg)
    
    Since you seem reluctant to discuss anything openly, then I suppose I
    will have to remain content with the knowledge that you don't have the
    foggiest idea of what I am talking about.  For that matter, I don't
    think you know what _you_ are talking about.  So long, partner.
    
    Mike

    
    How did non-violence, peaceful coexistenct, and diplomacy protect
    Kuwait???
    
    fred();

    Re: .206 (Haddock)
    
    You don't understand.  There are some people who feel they have it
    pretty much made in life, and they aren't interested in making any
    sacrifices to help protect the future.  That was the attitude among
    many in the western nations in the 1930's, and it seems to be the
    attitude among many today.  
    
    Mike

    re .207
    
    That's exactly my point.  Peace at *any* price can be *very* costly
    indeed.  
    
    A little economic trivia.
    I have no doubt that if it weren't for the American presence in
    Germany for the last 40 years that East and West Germany would
    have been reunited a long time ago.  But it would *all* look
    like East Germany.
    
    As to those who rant about the war-mongering Americans.  Has 
    anyone else but me noticed that we (the West) just conqured East
    Germany without firing a shot?
    
    fred();

    re: .208 (Haddock)
    
    We didn't fire a shot, but we sure spent one hell of a lot of money
    defending western Europe from the east over the last 45 years.  Surely
    it totals well into the trillions.  Not to mention all our people we
    have placed in a potential harms way over the years.
    
    Mike

    Mike,
    
    I am for discussing everything openly, the point I made is that I don't
    want to talk in circles. Read my previous replies and point me to a
    place where my "imperfect" understanding of U.S. history was obvious.
    Whoever says the Independence war started for the sake of freedom etc.
    should do his historical homework. But not again, please...
    
    re.: to the ones that say the West "won" East Germany...
    
    Quit it, please. It's NOT a matter about ideological victories...the
    people in East Germany wanted the Western DM, wanted a better standard
    of life...that was the MAIN reason they voted the way they voted in
    their last elections, it's obvious to everybody who's been in
    Germany....ECONOMICS triumphed again.
    What's more, most of us younger Germans don't care a damn for a unified
    Germany; I mean, I'm all for constructive relations with the "East",
    but I can't see why East Germany should be any closer to me than many
    other countries...hell, everyone's forgotten that, through the course
    of history, Germany has only been unfied between 1871-1945...and it
    started three conflicts in this time...
    If we (the Western nations) continue going with this arrogant attitude
    of saying "our system's the ONLY one", we're not going anywhere. Over
    the years, our system has been doing quite a lot of harm, too. Tell
    that to the third world.
    As for the poor Kuwaitis not suceeding with passive resistance...I am
    not aware of them trying it, you seem to know a lot more. I am just
    seeing how their UN-emissaries are pressing the U.S. into military
    action, no matter if it's their own folk that gets slaughtered. No,
    their politicians are just as legitimate and concerned about the PEOPLE
    as everywhere else...
    As for the necessity in defending Western Europe from the evil reign of
    Communism...well, I'd say EACH side (and that's putting it mildly, for
    Truman wasn't a soft customer...) had a fair share in building up the
    pitiful political climate that led to the cold war. If I were a
    Russian, I'd be suspicious at "allies" that talk about maybe extending
    war actions against the USSR once the Nazis were slaughtered...
    I'd recommend Andrej Gromyko's memoirs to get an insight into another
    perspective. 
    Don't put the blame on us Europeans for the exaggerate military
    spending of your government in the last ten years....every European
    expert said it was unnecessary from a tactical point of view, not to
    speak from political and economical implications.
    Look, I'm far from battering the U.S., for I know European governments
    are not better by an inch.
    But intervening won't help. Intervene now and you'll just make the
    Islamic fundamentalists stronger, for military intervention on their
    sacred ground is exactly the kind of demagogic background they need to
    create fanatism. 
    Like Steve told me, let us agree to disagree. I'm sure you are as
    convinced of your reasoning as I am. But I'm absolutely sure the
    future, the only way to have the prospect of a future, belongs to my
    way of thinking.
    Cheers,
    	   Paul

    re .207
    
    Mike,
    
    this requires a special reply...
    
    You talk big words about "people not willing to make sacrifices
    blabla.."...
    
    I don't understand...what big sacrifice are YOU making now??? In fact,
    your attitude requires that OTHER people make the sacrifice why you
    comfortably stay at home and pride yourself of the struggle for justice
    your "country" is fighting...So would YOU willingly take a holiday in
    the dessert now? Would YOU be fighting down there to preserve the whole 
    world of being conquered by Hussein???
    
    To allow me taking any of your heroic words seriously you'd first have
    to volunteer.
    
    You're damn right, I don't have the foggiest notion of what you talk
    about....but neither do you.
    
    ...Paul

    
    Paul, you've announced that you're not going to write here more times
    than Muhammad Ali retired from boxing!
    

    Re -1:
    
    You raise a good point: why is it always MEN who appear in the boxing
    ring? Why can't WOMEN box until their liquified brain cells reduce them
    to no-consonants talk-show mumblers?
    
    - Hoyt

    You're right; Dwight...
    Hell, it's even worse, for Ali came back for money, but in my case it
    just for the sake of getting a bloody nose from the collective efforts
    by Steve, Mike & co...guess my brain's taken some serious damage by
    repeating the same stuff over and over again...
    Yeah, I should learn Ali's lesson and RETIRE in time, if that's what
    you're hinting at!!
    
    Re. Hoyt....Why? Remebember my main point?...Boy's education. That's
        why. Change education and you'll change the world.
    
    ...Paul 

    Re -1: It all starts with education
    
    I have three step-daughters. At the time I entered the household, they
    were 4, 4, and 7. I would take them to Caldor's to do Christmas
    shopping for each other and Mom, leaving two in charge of each other in
    one part of the store while I escorted the third through the toy
    department. "Do you think Marg would like THIS?" I would ask, pointing
    at a rocket ship or toy gun or bulldozer or G.I. Joe doll. "No, that's
    BOY stuff." Emphatically sex-typed at 4!
    
    We need a G.I Jane doll (and supporting television program) to inform
    the four-year-old girls that they too have a perfect right to die for
    their country. G.I. Jane marching cheerfully off to war, with Daddy and
    family (gravely but supportingly) waving goodbye from the front porch. 
    G.I. Jane parachuting into the embassy compund, freeing the (female,
    needless to say) U.S. hostages there. G.I. Jane (and her buddies, Ball
    Buster and Big Top) swilling some post-battle brewskies at the PX. The
    merchandizing opportunities boggle the mind: G.I. Jane dolls with lots
    of G.I. Jane outfits, G.I. Jane posters, G.I. Jane lunchboxes, G.I.
    Jane fatigues, G.I. Jane training bras, on and on and on!
    
    - Hoyt

    RE: Last few.  Me thinks he likes to hear himself talk. 
    
    Paul,
    
          You've accused others of doing the same thing you are doing, only
    you are doing it worse.  You've made so many innuendos about groups of
    people that it has taken all credence from the content of your notes. 
    Whereas there is some validity to some of what you say, I think you
    need to come back to reality for a while.  I'm also glad that you are
    not here after your comments about our Vietnam vets, because you might
    get some unwanted cosmetic work.  I know alot of vets whose country
    called, and they went.  Nothing but honorable intentions.  You see, just 
    because you don't agree with something does not make it wrong.  I think
    you need to reevaluate some of your fundamental premises, because alot
    of the remainder of your argument is incorrect because of invalid
    fundamental premises.  This, of course, is all in my personal opinion. 
    After reading all these note, I felt something had to be said.  People
    do have differing opinions and your chastising them does not make them
    wrong.
    
    Your idea of a nice peaceful world is very appealing, even to us
    American war mongers without any intelligence who go mindlessly where
    our government officials (who we elect, by the way) tell us.  We, 
    however realize that there are threats to the world which need to be 
    dealt with.  The sad part is, that our soldiers blood will be spilled 
    and the people who don't want to have anything to do with the situation 
    will share in the benefits while still espousing there idealistic refuse.  
    Take the benefits, pay none of the cost, what a deal.  It's like the
    environmentalist or homeless activist entertainer who goes around
    speaking their blather while riding around in their gas guzzling
    limosine.  Hypocrites, the whole lot.  
    
    
    Well enough of me espousing my idealistic blather. 
    
    Peace,
    
    Mike   
    
    

    Mike,
    
    I can't follow your argumentation, for I'm not aware of ever having
    said anything offensive about war veterans, and that includes Vietnam
    veterans as well. My bottomline is that, yes, the folks to go and fight
    believe in ideals, and that's an attitude I sincerely respect,
    BUT...in reality, they are being used by politicians who set the
    priorities differently. Normally, war veterans would be the first to
    agree with this, most of them feel misused, but I don't want to talk
    for them, and neither should you (in the case you haven't been there).
    There's at least one reply in here from a vet that is active
    in avoiding anything like Vietnam to happen again.
    
    As for my premises not being realistic, well, I could say your premises
    part from a pervert reality that could be easily changed. So I could
    dispute the ethical validity of your promises as well.
    
    And for your comment about us Europeans being ungrateful squirrels for
    letting you carry the cost of imposing justice on the world...no
    comment...
    
    ...Paul

    Paul,
    
          To address your last two paragraphs.
    
    2nd to last)  As long as you have people such as Hitler, Mussolini, and 
    Hussein in the world, sorry won't happen.  
    
    Last)  Sorry, I don't lump whole countries in the same basket.  I speak
    to individuals.  Thank you in advance for not trying to restate any
    more of my thoughts so as to make it appear that I am speaking of
    groups of people rather thean individuals.  If I met everyone in a
    certain category, that is what I would have said.  In this instance, I
    am addressing people who don't want to get involved in conflict, but
    will reap the benefits of freedom which are a result of said conflict.
    
    
    Peace,
    
    Mike
    

    I do agree with some of what you said in your beginning paragraph
    regarding our illustrious politicians.  Unfortunately alot of people
    don't care and thus don't vote, therefore the status quo remains just
    that.
    
    Mike

    	RE: .137  Mike W.

    	Something I've been meaning to ask you...

    	Earlier in this topic, you said "In the letting the women and children 
    	go scenario, I was addressing what is taking place in the Middle East 
    	right now.  I'd insist that my wife and kids leave.  If my wife said 
    	she wanted to stay with me, I'd tell her to get her *ss on the plane 
    	PERIOD."

    	What if she refused?

    	Then you said, "This is not because I want to be a martyr and die, it 
    	is because anyone who can get out should get out.  If I was offered 
    	the opportunity and there were other women and children or elderly or 
    	handicapped, etc there I would request that they get released in my 
    	place.  Why?  No, I don't want to die or be held captive, but I have 
    	been taught that you put others before yourself."

    	If you did this, would you be brave or selfish?

    	Assuming that your children were already on their way home and your
    	wife was not pregnant, what if she demanded that another's child be 
    	given her seat on the plane out (because SHE wanted to put the child 
    	before herself.)

    	In this situation, would your WIFE be brave or selfish?

    	If there is a difference in answers for the two of you, please explain.

re:  .217  (paul)

>>>>My bottomline is that, yes, the folks to go and fight believe in ideals,
and that's an attitude I sincerely respect, BUT...in reality, they are being
used by politicians who set the priorities differently. 

This is a moot point.  Every government must have an army to survive in a
violent world.   Therefore, people must be called upon by the government to
serve.  Note, the keyword is "serve."  To serve is to be as a tool.   By your
logic, Paul, people serving the government are being used.  So what?  You're
being used.... by Digital.  You're a pawn.  You're a tool for Digital to get
what it wants, which is .... bottomline... to make a profit.  Many governments,
or fools like *SODAM INSANE* want power and wealth.  DEC also wants to be
number "1" and make money.  DEC's method is legal, *SODAM INSANE's* is not.
So some *policing action* must take place to right a wrong.

DEC declares policy and you obey, or you hit the door.  You volunteered to work
for DEC.  The folks in the service today are volunteers as well.  They know the
risk of wearing the uniform.  They know they will be *directed* and must follow
orders.  They understand *justice* and that keeping the peace, (so that you and
I can sit back and talk ____ about world affairs), must sometimes mean being
*police* on a world wide scale.

>>>>Normally, war veterans would be the first to agree with this, most of them
feel misused, but I don't want to talk for them, and neither should you (in the
case you haven't been there).

Most anyone in the armed services wants peace.  Just because you're not in the
army doesn't mean you have exclusive rights to the idea of living in peace. 
Noters are telling you that your dreams of a perfect world with peace
everywhere, will never happen.    It's a sweet thought, but not realistic.  It
won't happen.  John Lennon's song, "Imagine," is a beautiful song with a great
message, but the title is *IMAGINE* and John wasn't a fool thinking it would be
reality.  It was his wish, and he was sharing this thoughts with us in his
song.  Many people share John's wish, but know the cost for freedom is high.

>>>>And for your comment about us Europeans being ungrateful squirrels for
letting you carry the cost of imposing justice on the world...no comment...

This wasn't addressed to me, but it was probably best you didn't comment.
    
-dwight

    Mike W, Mike and Steve,
    
    I am not aware of having chastised you for having another opinion
    than I have (at least not more than you've done with me), but, hey, in
    the heat of an argument that is as founded on "beliefs" as this one
    is, one can get close to the edge by looking for rhetorical ammunition.
    If I've done, *please*, excuse me, that has never been my style during
    discussions. The apology comes from the heart. 
    Maybe if we'd be writing in German or Spanish I'd have had a better 
    feeling for the right word at the right time and I could have tried to 
    prevent this discussion of becoming as emotional as it has become.
    I feel that somehow I have contributed in creating an atmosphere that has
    lead to both sides entrenching themselves and never reading between the
    lines, just trying to catch a wrong word, and not trying to listen to
    the real bottom-line of each other's argumentation, and I apologise for
    that.
    It's really a pitty, for I view this as a missed chance. Let me add
    that I have a better understanding for your argumentation than meets
    the eye from my replies (which does NOT mean I agree with everything you
    say, though..). My points remain there, scattered somewhere between
    all the replies to this note, and there's not much I can add to them.
    Maybe I'd just ask you to re-read them with more tolerance, being aware
    that I'm not attacking anyone, for I accept other opinions, but that I 
    just wanted to contribute with another point of view.
    I have learned from our discussions in this note, and I enjoyed them, too.
    Thank you,
               Paul 

    Paul,
    
          Thank you as well.  The scenario you describe for the world is
    very apealing and a vision that I have and want very much to come to
    be.  I just don't think this is possible with the types of different
    cultures we have today.  I REALLY LIKE WHAT YOU WANT THE WORLD TO BE.
    Maybe, if we can get the message out to everyone, this will be a
    possibility.  Today however, I believe that we need our military so as
    we will not all become victims of someone who wants to take over the
    world.  
    
    Peace to you my friend,
    
    Mike
    
    
    
    
    Suzanne,
    
          Someone needs to raise the children, so I would want my wife to
    leave.  This is for the benefit of the children only.  Do I think this
    is selfish on my part? No, but I'm sure you will find some way to make
    it seem so.  Would it be selfish on her part to want to stay?  No,
    honorable in my eyes, but my wife is a very honorable woman.  You see,
    she has given up her career for the good of her family, something else
    I deem honorable.  No thanks to some of the womens "movement"  who try
    to make a woman feel like they are worthless because they are a mom. 
    Fortunately my wife doesn't buy all the crap that this "movement" has
    espoused.  (Not saying that the movement hasn't had some positive
    effects, because I believe it has.  I just happen to believe that the
    negative effects have far outweighed the positive ones, but that's
    another note.)  Now, I don't know where you are going with this, but in 
    knowing your style I'm sure there is some hidden agenda so I am no longer 
    going to continue this discourse unless you put your cards on the table.  
    
    Peace to you as well,
    
    Mike
    

Re: 221 . 

I think there are at least two countries that maintain no armed forces. Can't
remember which. At least one is in Africa.

Mark.

>	Was there ever a time that the human race was absent of violence?


	Right before Eve seduced Adam.



	

    There are early European societies, such as Catal Huyuk, that
    sho no archeological evidence of any sort of organized war fare.
    
    

    No violence in that part of the world, much of Europe. Evidence
    is lacking for that far back for the whole world.
    
    Bonnie

    Where'd they go ? (My guess is they were dogmeat for the first
    predatory tribe they met. Si vis pacem, parabellum.)

    There was a long period of peace until they encountered wandering
    more militaristic more patriarchal tribes which eventually did
    over come them.
    
    

Saying "It's never been done before" is a weak excuse to avoid trying
something new.

					Steve

    My brother has (vociferously!) asserted that pre-agricultural human
    societies did not have organized warfare, that war as we
    modern-and-civilized-type humans know it was invented by cultures that
    had a surplus to guard against the outsiders, or that had a king (or
    god-king) who assumed ownership of the surplus.  I'll ask him for more
    details - I presume he has something to back this up, and he has
    studied anthropology formally and informally - and post them if/when I
    get them.
    
    Note, this is not to say that there was never any fighting or raiding. 
    I have the feeling that several things may be being lumped together
    here: violence by individuals, disputes over territory for
    hunting/gathering, attempts at conquest, religious conflicts...
    
    About the surplus guarding, I'll speculate that those who were still
    hunting/gathering might have had difficulty understanding the
    motivation of those producing/guarding a surplus.
    
    I'll mention the Semai people here - a Pacific island people who were
    alternately occupied by the Brits and the Japs during WWII.  The Semai
    do not do physical violence at all.  Their whole culture rejected even
    the most minor striking of another person.  You can imagine the time
    they had between the combatants.  Finally, some Japanese decided that
    some Semai should be killed, and started doing so -- and a group of
    Semai men went beserk and slaughtered the Japanese.  But they were
    horrified by their own behavior, and said that they had been not-Semai
    -- not human -- at that time.  (source is a book from college days...)
    

    In .231:
    
    > Si vix pacem, parabellum.)
    
    Translation?  I can barely translate sic biscuitus disintegratum  :)
    
    As I had occasion to remark in HUMAN::DIGITAL a re minutes ago (notes
    break), Ask and look foolish [for a few minutes]; don't ask, and
    remain a fool.
    
    Thanks,
    aq
    
    
    

    I meant to say:
    
    In .231:
    
    > Si vis pacem, parabellum.)
    
    Oops,
    aq
    

    re .235
    Roughly, 'If you would live in peace, prepare for war.' Means
    that those who appear ready to deal with trouble rarely have to.

    .... Yea, and that's why we need the bomb to keep us safe too!
    
    I say this with straight face.
    
    A country unprepared, is like walking into the lions den, butt naked,
    with a pork chop hanging out of yer *ss, talking sh*t!
    
    -dwight

    Actually, when human population was low, there was little 
    competion for resources. You could farm an area until the soil
    was depleted and then move on. Peace and plenty go hand in hand.
    Unfortunately populations increase, the weather patterns shift. 
    Someone has to move, or starve. Someone else is in the way or 
    sitting on better land. Those on the move can choose to go around, 
    or to invade. The latter choice is not right, but the invader might 
    reason that going around will just bring more of the same - lands
    already occupied. So he attacks. End of peace. 

    RE: -1  And there is the last, most important component of greed to
    complete the equation.
    
    
    Mike

    Mike Z. -
    
    Until the advent of global communications (within this century) no one
    was capable of thinking on a global scale because, logistically,
    coomunications didn't allow it.
    
    Nanci

    Another unique possibly-peace-yielding attribute of the present is the
    ease of transportation around the world. Perhaps we should take a line
    from Hussein's book. He's placed the Western hostages around strategic
    points to ward off attack. The world at large could accomplish this by
    engaging in a global youth-for-understanding program. If twenty percent
    (say) of the world's teenagers were overseas, in the hands of potential
    enemies, then everyone would have hostages. We could raise the
    percentage for public officials: if you're a federal bureaucrat over
    the GS-11 level, or a military officer with rank major (or equivalent)
    or above, then *half* your teenage children must be abroad at any given
    moment.
    
    This would have the benefit of providing everyone hostages. It would
    also go a long ways toward improving family life: teenagers get along
    with everyone except their own parents, because the parents cannot
    award the children the adult status they crave, while strangers are
    very happy to grant that status. Finally, it would go a LONG ways
    toward promoting understanding across cultures, since (soon) a large
    proportion of each country would have that broadening foreign
    experience, and would probably even promote a merging of cultures (for
    better or worse).
    
    - Hoyt

    Hoyt, most *civilized* countries would *not* take action against
    _hostages_ and most of the uncivilized countries *know it*.
    For instance, there are a great many Iraqi people in the US who 
    are in *no* danger, because George Bush ((for all his faults) is 
    *not* Saddam Hussein. 

    Great idea, Hoyt! 
    
    Do you suppose I could get a job with the government so I can get my
    daughter signed up?
    
    Nanci (single parent of a 6 year old who's going on 15)

    This *does* suggest a nice piece of leverage on children. It used to be
    "the boogy man will get you." With the THFP (Teenage Hostages for
    Peace) program, we could threaten to send kids to scary places. "If
    you're not good, we'll send you to Russia, where you'll have to stand
    in line for hours to buy toilet paper!" We could also apply the program
    the way Fidel managed the boat-lift during the Carter years. Fidel sent
    his criminals and mentally ill. We could send our New Kids on the Block
    fans  ^).
    
    Actually, the U.S. implemented this policy a long time ago. Our troops
    in Western Europe are there to operate weapons and fight a war. They're
    also there to die if someone drops The Big One there. It's impossible
    for anyone to obliterate West Germany, for example, without taking a
    lot of U.S. troops too. The troops represented a commitment by the U.S.
    to take lumps, if lumps are handed out, to validate the U.S. promise to
    administer lumps in return. "Our boys" getting crisped is one of the
    best ways to firm up let's-go-to-war-resolve. Remember the Maine. Pearl
    Harbor. Gulf of Tonkin. Join the Navy -- be a crisp-object!
    
    I believe it's entirely possible that the Iraqi-U.S. confrontation
    hasn't yet turned into combat because of the women and children held
    hostage. Now the final planeful of non-males is leaving Bahgdad. I fear
    that violence may be at hand.
    
    - Hoyt

    re:  228
    
    You say world peace is impossible because it has never happened.
    
    By your logic we would never have had space travel because until the
    late fifties it had never happened - no exceptions.

    Surely technology can be used in the cause of peace, in ways *other*
    than inventing a better way to threaten the enemy. Our early-warning
    radar systems and associated fighter aircraft and missile installations
    probably qualify as peace-making technology. Science fiction is full of
    such devices: fields which suppress nuclear fission or protect cities
    from nuclear explosions; stunners, possibly floating around under robot
    control as general violence preventives; conditioning machinery and
    chemical soup additives (drugs) which suppress aggression or enhance
    empathy or eliminate paranoia.
    
    Referring to the thread of this topic: Modern military technology, which
    vastly reduces the role of brawn in combat, may promote peace if it
    allows woman a full combat role and thereby changes our collective
    taste for combat.
    
    - Hoyt

    re .247 Must disagree. World peace will come about not because
    of human evolution, but as a result of philosophical revolution.

    As I listen to the news, I'm struck by the nearly-universal use of the 
    expression "men and women" to refer to the middle-east combatants.
    National Public Radio's Kokie (sp?) Roberts commented on this
    yesterday: where traditionally U.S. fighting forces were referred to as
    "our boys," now the phrase is "men and women." Kokie observed "It's not
    the first time that women have turned boys into men."
    
    I am proud of the fact that there are women in the U.S. armed forces,
    particularly in the context of the feudal, fifteenth-century Saudi
    culture. It seems highly civilized. Is it too strange to call our
    method of conducting *war* "civilized?"
    
    - Hoyt

    Yes, it's too strange.  Let's just call it "practical" and get the
    job over with.
    
    Don't mean to pick on you Hoyt, I just don't want anybody using such a
    dreadful occasion as ammunition for our political gender crises.  Its
    already bad enough (in both situations) that mixing the two further is
    bound to only make for more hard feelings, not to resolve anything.
    
    DougO

    U.S. fatalities in the middle-east to date (per this afternoon's briefing):
    
        23 killed in the air war;
        28 killed when the SCUD missile slammed into the barracks;
        28 others killed in combat.
    
    Of the 79 killed (an *amazingly* low figure, I think), one was female,
    a victim of the SCUD missile.
    
    - Hoyt

    of course I could be mistaken, it's barely possible that women have
    escaped all effects of the war, but I think I may have seen and heard
    reports of women being affected by (a) the bombing of Iraq and (b) the
    Iraqi occupation of Kuwait.

    In the first couple of days of the ground war they reported
    4 US servicemen killed.  Then we heard that the marines
    spent the better part of two days slugging it out with
    tanks to take the Kuwait City airport.  Also that some of
    the Republican Guard had been engaged.  Are we to believe
    that only 24 lives were lost in two days of heavy fighting
    around the airport and some engagements with the RG?  I'd 
    like to believe these low numbers, but it seems to me that 
    the numbers aren't in yet...
    
                    Wil

9 Desert Rats are the only British casualties I heard of. Killed by friendly
fire. These things happen.

Mark.

    This morning a Saudi general was quoted as estimating Iraqi combat
    deaths over 100,000.
    
    - Hoyt

    I read that there were three US women soldiers known to have been
    killed during the entire conflict.  I find myself wondering if
    any of them, particularly the one who was killed by the Scud, will
    be considered to have "died in combat" and thus be entitled to the
    honors and family benefits accorded to men who were similarly
    classed.  This was an issue in Panama, where a woman solider was
    awarded some sort of combat medal and then had it taken away from
    her, since of course, women aren't allowed in combat!  Sigh.
    
    I haven't seen anything recently about the US woman soldier who
    was reported missing and thus possibly captured by Iraq.  This
    was a situation that a lot of folks didn't want to believe might
    happen.  
    
    				Steve

    
    I would consider being killed by SCUD as being killed in combat.
                                           
    Thats what the 'raqis were trying for. And the barracks is a 
    legitimate target.
    
    Whether they get a CIB depends on what their MOS was. I understand
    that only a infantryman can get one.
    
    They will of course get a Purple Heart.

    Steve,
    
    I think I read that at least one woman who had been missing and
    presumed taken prisoner had been found.
    
    Does anyone else remember anything about this?
    
    Bonnie

    -1
    
    She is being released, or has been released.  I forget which.
    
    db

    The woman being released, wasn't the first one that was reported
    missing. I apparently missed the report of the second woman.
    
    Bonnie

    
    When told that her face was on the cover of a French magazine, she was
    supposed to have said that maybe she should stay in Baghdad...

    Chanced across a statistic last night:
    
    There are something like 57,000 names on the Viet Nam Memorial; 8
    are the names of women.
    
    The author tells a story of his brother being the brave one, leaving
    her behind as he forges into danger, and dies. It occurred to me, that
    if we heard "burglar sounds" downstairs, what are the chances of my
    staying upstairs while my wife heads down with the baseball bat? Zip.
    Would she stay upstairs while I went heroically downward? Absolutely.

    >> her behind as he forges into danger, and dies. It occurred to me, that
    >> if we heard "burglar sounds" downstairs, what are the chances of my
    >> staying upstairs while my wife heads down with the baseball bat? Zip.
    >> Would she stay upstairs while I went heroically downward? Absolutely.

	What are you saying here, Hoyt?  Are you saying that it should
	be a toss-up who goes down?  If so, are you suggesting that the
	effectiveness of a 5-foot, 5-inch woman wielding a baseball bat
	would equal that of a 6-foot specimen like yourself?  I don't
	get it.  But maybe that's not what you're saying...

	Could you please enlighten me?

	Diane

interesting side issue:

I've read several articles in various science magazines which state that
'risk taking' behavior is greatest in those individuals with higher
testosterone levels.  Being as testosterone is the primary hormone which
triggers male sexual characteristics/behavior, it follows that the male
of the species is MORE likely to be willing to go down the stairs with
a baseball bat to confront the intruders.....I, being a female with less
testosterone in my system would, instead, get myself quietly OUT OF THE
HOUSE and to a phone....or at least into a locked room with a phone from
which I could call in police assistance.  My approach would be to remove
myself from danger as quickly as possible.  My men friends would be
likely to try and "scare the intruders away".  The exception to this rule
would, of course, be in the case where a child was perceived to be in
danger at which point both man and woman would likely act in the perceived
best interests of the child, regardless of personal feelings.

re: size of woman being a consideration...well, yes, but only if she has not
been combat trained.  At that point, the SMART thing is to let the most
capable one, perhaps a woman, take the lead.  Any bets on how many of you
men out there would default to allowing the woman to take over at a time
like that described?

    Say Di!
    
    I'm saying that men have a tendency to be gallant and shortly
    thereafter to be dead. I'm not really grappling with the question of
    which gender is more qualified to go downstairs to confront the
    burglar. I think it could be a fatal error to frame the issue that way,
    because I would almost certainly end up more qualified. I'd rather say
    "It's not worth it for me to possibly get killed to prevent some junkie
    from stealing our television, honey. You go ahead if you want to. I'm
    going to stay here and dial the cops." And if she thinks less of me for
    my cowardice, then I'll think less of her for valuing my life so
    little, and for applying such a poor metric in her assessment of my
    character.
    
    I think it would be incredibly hard to actually DO this. It would take
    an awfully together guy to be willing to take *appropriate* actions in
    the fact of physical danger. We are too well indoctrinated to sacrifice
    ourselves. We are too terrified of someone thinking we're scared.
    
    Say "die"!

	Re: .267

	Okay, whatever you say.

	Re: .269 (the man himself speaks) 

    >> "It's not worth it for me to possibly get killed to prevent some junkie
    >> from stealing our television, honey. You go ahead if you want to. I'm
    >> going to stay here and dial the cops." And if she thinks less of me for
    >> my cowardice, then I'll think less of her for valuing my life so
    >> little, and for applying such a poor metric in her assessment of my
    >> character.
    
	I agree one hundred percent with you, Hoyt.  That would be the
	truly mature and sensible thing to do, given the right situation.
	I certainly wouldn't think less of you - I'd be happy that you
	weren't gallantly dashing off to your own funeral.  
	
	Thanks for that clarification, kiddo.

	8-) Never.

    Hey, that's pretty much how it happened to me! Of course me and my ex
    had one of those Bob Hope / Jane Russell type relationships anyway.
    Personally I thought she was crazy for going out there, but she'd
    broken a guy's jaw once and I guess she could do it again in a pinch.
    
    (As it turned out, the "burglar" was our old friend George (staying
    with me right now) who had let himself in at 4 AM without calling first
    because he didn't want to disturb us. If life was a TV movie we'd've
    had a gun.)
    
    Ray