--- Damon Agretto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, that's an interesting theory, but I don't > neccessarily agree with it > (before or after). Most of the time, where troops > have contact with the > local population or the enemy, women soldiers will > not be around, or at the > very least apparent. This is because of the > non-combat role they're in.
> Damon. This is certainly true, of course. I think the theory is that the presence of women in the area has a high benefit. The British and Canadian armies are both also volunteer, and while the educational level and such of the American military is definitely better than both, it seems like the huge gap in performance seems like it is too large to be explained by that sort of fairly marginal difference. That aside, I have to say that I find myself virtually incapable of thinking about this rationally. I am _quivering_ with rage about this. This is personal to me. I volunteered to go there almost a year ago. _Two weeks ago_ they called me to say that my security clearance was being processed and that a final offer might be imminent. Just by _volunteering_ I probably did permanent damage to my career at McKinsey, which was not a small thing to give up. These fucking idiots have permanently stained the effort of every one of my friends over there, of every _person_ working there in both the army and the civilian service. If the army decided to shoot them in the main street of _Baghdad_ I wouldn't be upset. ===== Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
