In article ,
 "Heidi Graw"  wrote:

> >"Mark Sobolewski" 
wrote in message
> >news:mark_sobolewski-4CF213.19482016012005{at}news.central.cox.net...
> (snip)
>
> >>Heidi wrote:
> >> I would encourage any Canadian women to sign up for the Canadian Armed
> >> Forces.  We currently only have eight women assigned to combat units.
> >> The
> >> guys don't like it much...but too bad...You, as a woman, have the right
> >> to
> >> defend your country and to involve yourself in peacekeeping missions
> >> around
> >> the globe.
>
> > Mark wrote:
> > There's a number of reasons for these men's objections.
> >
> > In situations where women have been involved in combat and injured,
> > it has been disproportionately expensive or costly for the army
> > to rescue them or deal with their complaints.
> >
> > Also, the women get special treatment.  They get longer haircuts
> > and to wear some jewelry.  Is there a combat reason they can
> > wear it but men can't?
>
> What you've mentioned is only the start of it...the complaints I heard from
> men who object to women being integrated into their units is really quite
> interesting and disturbing.  I think if I were Commander-in-Chief, I'd have
> seperate armies:  one solely for men, the other solely for women.  I'd give
> them equipment proportional to size and strength. I'd make use of them in
> different ways.  *Equal opportunity to serve one's country*, different means
> and ways applied that *capitalizes on each individual's unique skills and
> talents.*
>
> Not all men can be Special Forces in the *men's* army....and not all women
> can be Special Forces in the *women's.*  Men's Special Forces might do
> something different from Women's Special Forces.  It depends on the type of
> war to be fought and the battle plans needed to carry out the objectives.
>
> I'm aware some women want to be integrated into the men's units in order to
> be *equal*.  Yet, for women to meet the men's standard is unrealistic.
> There's got to be a different way women can participate in the military
> using women's standards.  Capitalize on what each individual has to offer.
> To me that seems a fair and realistic way to go about involving women into
> the military and when they don't have to meet the *men's* standard we might
> actually get far more involved.

I appreciate your remarks and they sound sensible but the way
you phrase them, equal opportunity through different ways and means
sounds meaningless.

> >>Heidi wrote:
> >> Let's also protest *conscription* and never allow this vile practise.
>
> > Mark wrote:
> > Conscription, at a certain level, is similar to taxation.
> > In the states, conscription is now reserved for conditions
> > of where the country is under attack more or less.
>
> I know, but taxation doesn't usually involve life and death.  I just have to
> think back to WWII to see how conscription can be abused and misused by the
> government:  the Nazis.  I had relatives plucked off the fields at gun-point
> to serve Hitler.  They weren't even given a chance to say good-bye to their
> families.  Some of these young men and middle aged fathers never came back.
> For me, my anti-conscription stance is very personal.  I don't ever want to
> see anyone serve unless it is *voluntarily.*

I think conscription should have an international standard similar
to other weapons of mass destruction and only authorized for use
in defense of the country.

> (snip)
>
> >>Heidi wrote:
> >> For those interested and so inclined, feel free to join the
Armed Forces.
> >> We may need every man, woman and child if and when the US may get the
> >> notion
> >> to invade *us*...the Canadians.  ;-)
> >>
> >> Let's also hope the US will remain far too busy elsewhere to notice us.
> >> ;-)
>
> > Mark S. wrote:
> > Don't worry, we haven't noticed you.  Where is Canada anyway? :-)
>
> LOL....
>
> >
> > Hey, I like you guys!  But Americans are ignorant of geography
> > in general.
>
> Ya, I found that out.... I still get asked if I live in an igloo. And no, I
> don't eat whale blubber either.  ;-)
>
> Take care,
> Heidi
>
>
>

--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 1/17/05 6:04:18 PM ---