Author Topic: Human Rights and the Military  (Read 1114 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Milnet.ca

  • Guest
  • *
  • -285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 0
    • Milnet.ca
Human Rights and the Military
« on: September 21, 2002, 17:18:00 »
Posted by "dave" <davidwillard@home.com> on Fri, 21 Apr 2000 19:51:15 -0400
Women in the Combat Arms
    This is always a good one to stir up the pot. This is one old soldier
who was a "women‘s libber" before it became the popular, politically correct
thing to be. If a woman can do the same job as a man and in doing so cause
no compromise to the mission then every such opportunity should be open to
her. I think this is a reasonable stance for the military given the nature
of the beast and the possible dire consequences to all of society. Although
several studies were completed proving women generally did compromise the
mission for a whole host of reasons which I will not list at this time our
famous Human Rights Commission was not satisfied. The army was accussed of
not bending to change and the HRC was determined to bring them into line
even if kicking and screaming. Finally another study was agreed upon with a
mixed gender cross section of third party observers, this the HRC believed
would force the army into line. The study once again proved that all
previous trials had been above board and incorporating females into the
combat arms was not realistic if we were to maintain a well honed level of
efficiency. Just the amount of logistical resources to support such an
endeavour was wasteful and deemed ill conceived given what the mandate of
the combat arms represents. At this stage the HRC had other world models to
learn from namely, Israel, Iraq, USSR and facts found to date with the U.S
who were in the midst of grappling with this so called human rights issue.
At this point all of the above, exclusive of the U.S., had learned the hard
way...abymismal failure/unworkable.
    Even with this information the HRC was intransigent, they had already
made up their minds. So a decree came down from on high that women would be
incorporated into the combat arms. They would be given the right to share
2‘x6‘ slit trench with a man but, now get this, they would not be allowed to
share quarters in a submarine because of the close quarters and the obvious
infringement on female dignity. This, my fellow members of the List is the
mentality of the HRC.
    We would like to think all Canadians are in favour of the concept of
human rights. As military people this is a major part of what we do and why
we do it with the willingness to ultimately die to ensure it. When we have
however such an ongoing display of inane behaviour by the very panel that is
appointed to enforce it, one must step back and take note. Our military
methodologies have been honed over many years the history of man, I use man
in the generic sense and put in place through much study and too much mud,
blood and guts. This horrendous price that we have paid in detemining the
most efficient and safe ways of conducting our business should not be
undermined by an militarily unqualified, appointed group of idealistic
tinkerers.
Dave Willard
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.

Offline Milnet.ca

  • Guest
  • *
  • -285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 0
    • Milnet.ca
Re: Human Rights and the Military
« Reply #1 on: September 21, 2002, 17:19:00 »
Posted by "dave" <dave.newcombe@home.com> on Sat, 22 Apr 2000 21:53:48 -0700
I agree whole heartedly with what you say, Dave. I don‘t understand how this
panel of civvies can sit and pass these decrees, based only on their version
of political correctness.
Maybe they should try and recruit and retain an entire female unit, before
the make permanent conclusions about their effectiviness.
I believe there are plenty of women out there who are physically capable of
passing the standards.  To pretend that they will even try, is ludicrous.
Will the males perform with the same attitude as they have in the past.  Who
knows, but who wants to find out the hard way.  Some pencil neck geek from
the HRC probably even let their daughter near a recruitng station.  There
always full of those soldier types.
I could rant forever on this one.
Out
----- Original Message -----
From: dave
To:
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2000 4:51 PM
Subject: Human Rights and the Military
> Women in the Combat Arms
>
>     This is always a good one to stir up the pot. This is one old soldier
> who was a "women‘s libber" before it became the popular, politically
correct
> thing to be. If a woman can do the same job as a man and in doing so cause
> no compromise to the mission then every such opportunity should be open to
> her. I think this is a reasonable stance for the military given the nature
> of the beast and the possible dire consequences to all of society.
Although
> several studies were completed proving women generally did compromise
the
> mission for a whole host of reasons which I will not list at this time
our
> famous Human Rights Commission was not satisfied. The army was accussed of
> not bending to change and the HRC was determined to bring them into line
> even if kicking and screaming. Finally another study was agreed upon with
a
> mixed gender cross section of third party observers, this the HRC believed
> would force the army into line. The study once again proved that all
> previous trials had been above board and incorporating females into the
> combat arms was not realistic if we were to maintain a well honed level of
> efficiency. Just the amount of logistical resources to support such an
> endeavour was wasteful and deemed ill conceived given what the mandate of
> the combat arms represents. At this stage the HRC had other world models
to
> learn from namely, Israel, Iraq, USSR and facts found to date with the U.S
> who were in the midst of grappling with this so called human rights issue.
> At this point all of the above, exclusive of the U.S., had learned the
hard
> way...abymismal failure/unworkable.
>     Even with this information the HRC was intransigent, they had already
> made up their minds. So a decree came down from on high that women would
be
> incorporated into the combat arms. They would be given the right to share
> 2‘x6‘ slit trench with a man but, now get this, they would not be allowed
to
> share quarters in a submarine because of the close quarters and the
obvious
> infringement on female dignity. This, my fellow members of the List is the
> mentality of the HRC.
>     We would like to think all Canadians are in favour of the concept of
> human rights. As military people this is a major part of what we do and
why
> we do it with the willingness to ultimately die to ensure it. When we have
> however such an ongoing display of inane behaviour by the very panel that
is
> appointed to enforce it, one must step back and take note. Our military
> methodologies have been honed over many years the history of man, I use
man
> in the generic sense and put in place through much study and too much
mud,
> blood and guts. This horrendous price that we have paid in detemining the
> most efficient and safe ways of conducting our business should not be
> undermined by an militarily unqualified, appointed group of idealistic
> tinkerers.
>
> Dave Willard
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.