-Caveat Lector- WJPBR Email News List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Peace at any cost is a prelude to war! =================================================== ARTICLE 3 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ FEMALE SOLDIER'S RESPONSE --- STOP THE DOUBLE STANDARD! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Kate Note: A profound response to last week's focus on women in the military, written by a former Army Captain turned mother. It would agree with Colonel Mary Hallaren, the Women's Army Corps staff director in the European theater during World War II. Col. Hallaren told an Army historian in 1977: "I feel very strongly that the military has got to be a ready and mobile force, and I can't see that it's a ready force with women who are pregnant or have small children. I think that is taking away something that the military has always stood for." **************************************************** By an Ex-Military Intelligence Officer I am a 20-something female vet who exited the service in Sep 1998 a Captain. I think it is essential to have women discuss the woman issue, particularly those with children since the feminists attack any male that has the moral courage to do so. The article by Ms. de Young in the last issue of VOTG is absolutely correct in regards to equal standards, particularly when it comes down to caring for children, or fulfilling your obligations to the Army. My service to our nation was no longer possible once I decided, and had a family. We have convinced, though, the modern women can do it all. It is not fair to women, nor the military. There are several areas where the current system is not fair to the Army or its soldiers. The first one deals with pregnancy. My existence in the service while pregnant was a joke. No mandatory PT, the maternity BDU (huh?). The six weeks "free" leave was great, for me and my family, but for the Army, and the soldiers who had to take up the slack, it was no good. Between doctor appointments and sickness during the pregnancy, I cannot tell you how much duty time was lost due to my pregnancy. But the unit had to drive on. Where does it say in the Army's charter after winning its nation's wars, that it has to provide for the needs of a pregnant women who made her own choice? I believe a woman who has children has no business being in the Army. I was a burden to the Army for two reasons: 1. My pregnancy kept me non-deployable, and 2. My natural obligation to my family changed my thinking -- I didn't want to be deployable. I had these children -- my responsibility was to them. Therefore, because of the Army's demands, I had to leave after my initial obligation was complete. I was giving up a lot of personal fulfillment, but the Army does not revolve around my personal fulfillment. Ms. de Young is correct with her call for one standard as it applies toward combat readiness. If there was one standard, male officers/NCOs would not need to keep their door open when talking with a female soldier "privately". If there was one standard, I may not have scored a 300, but I wouldn't have failed. If there was one standard, females who fell out of runs or marches would be retrained to prevent reoccurrence. If there was one standard, "cramps" would not be an acceptable excuse for missing formation or duty. If there was one standard, there would be no maternity BDUs, long outta-control hairdos, nail polish, or pantyhose! If you need to be girly to be female (there is a difference), become a super model. Mud and weapons are not for you. I am all female but can throw a mean fastball. If there was one standard, we would not need EO, because if you meet the combat standard, you already have Equal Opportunity. If there was one standard, girls that did wrong, like LT Flynn, would indeed be discharged and boys who did bad, like CSM McKinney, would be discharged too. I am tired of the Pvt. Flakes that Hack accurately portrayed as making a mockery of those girls that do their jobs. There are many fine female officers and enlisted soldiers that hold their own. Ask them how they meet and exceed standards and they will tell you it is by their own personal efforts, not something the Army did for them or gave them. Are women in the Army discriminated against? Sure. But as in the real world, if you cannot do the job - in its totality, you do not get the job. Being competent in the Army demands even more. Yet by being "fair" to women, we are being unfair to the Army, its soldiers and the nation. I believe, in all honesty, that most women in the military who are REAL officers and REAL enlisted soldiers agree that the needs of the Army come FIRST. These female officers and enlisted do not like being lumped in with the Pvt Flakes, do not want any special favors, and are the ones who indeed get the short end of the stick in performing duty, along with their male counterparts, when the pregnant soldier has to go to a Dr.'s appointment or "Mommie" has to leave early because her kids are sick. The bigger issue is when are leaders at the top going to be honest and discuss these issues. =========================================== ARTICLE 4 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ " AF BLUE" -- TAKING CARE OF THEIR OWN ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ We know that we are constantly hammering the services for neglecting the troops who do the tough jobs. Our goal: make leaders pay attention and create an environment that allows us to attract and retain good people for our nation's defense. This article shows that some units do good things to achieve the goal, especially when troops are committed to overseas missions during the holiday season. ZIMM. ***************************************************** By SSgt Bartlett, USAF I just read the article "Home is Where the Heart Is" by Bob Thomas and I felt I had to respond to let people know that the Air Force unit I am in is taking very good care of my family in almost every area mentioned in his article. My boss calls my wife every week to see if she needs anything. There is a unit deployed spouse program in which all spouses are briefed every month on the status of their spouses and what they can expect while they are deployed. Our next-door neighbor cut my grass when it was still needed as I did for him when he was gone this past summer. Also, our 1st Sgt keeps a list of spouses who need grass cut for which people volunteer. The base Family Support Center on base has excellent program called "hearts apart" which offers free oil changes and minor maintenance for the household's primary vehicle. Spouses are permitted to call their deployed spouses once a month using the base operator. Every Friday a program is in place to provide childcare so spouses can have an evening for themselves for whatever they want to do. Our wing has a spouses wives club as well that has meetings every month that is a wonderful support system. Although these programs should be proactive I suggest if a spouse is not getting the support he/she needs, they should contact their unit 1st Sgt or commander and the base Family Support Center. They will be taken care of because the Air Force takes care of their own. =========================================================== ARTICLE 5 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A SECRET AND PHONY WAR --- IRAQ 1999 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ZIMM's take: The phony, undeclared war with Iraq continues. Looks like the President and our Secretary of State are trying to keep this little trouble spot simmering for the good of a "stand-by diversion," should another "Monica" crisis occur, and to justify more defense contract work in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. To maintain this situation, our dedicated combat pilots must endure a high-stakes cat and mouse game with anti- aircraft missile sites, manned by "bonus inspired" AAA gunners and cleverly surrounded by civilian settlements. The Pentagon's solution to achieve decisive victory and avoid civilian casualties: CEMENT BOMBS. The score so far: Pilots risking their lives daily in useless missions/ no Iraqi bonuses paid/ Portland Cement stock on the rise. *********************************************************************** By Jim Botsford High value targets, like surface-to-air (SAM) missile sites, will always be top priority for our mission planners. The problem is, Saddam has figured out that our political leadership values the lives of Saddam's civilians more than the lives of our own military aviators. It's easy to see what Saddam is up to. Iraq is not a free society. He obviously "encourages" his own people (claims they are non combatants) to set up house right next to his high value targets. Then, when American aviators are required to defend themselves, the aviators place American politicians and military leadership in a dilemma. Politicians don't want dead non-combatants on the evening news for the world to see. Military leadership, rightly so, must follow the dictates of the political leadership, or resign. Therefore, when an aircraft is targeted by an Iraqi SAM site, politicians and military leadership do not allow the aviator to return fire with an effective weapon, like say a 2000 pound high explosive laser guided bomb (LGB) and ensure the complete destruction of the entire offending site. They authorize the delivery of 2000 pounds of laser guided Portland cement. True, even 2000 pounds of non-explosive cement traveling at high terminal velocity can result in extensive destruction to the immediate target it strikes, if it strikes it directly. Remember F=MxA, it will take out the radar site it was targeted against, if, it directly impacts it. On the other hand, the Iraqi operator of the SAM site, that is so eager to bag an American aviator and collect his reward bonus, most likely continues to go home to his family at the end of his shift. It should be understood that the control van where the operators sit and the radar illuminator/missile launcher of most SAM sites are not in close enough proximity to ensure the destruction of both when Portland cement is the weapon of choice. However, had 2000 pounds of high explosive HBX-6 been delivered, rather than Portland cement, it would in all likelihood destroy both the missile site and ensure that that particular Iraqi operator collected an entirely different type of reward as well. Possibly, other Iraqi SAM operators would consider the options of reporting "sorry sir, I did not have a good shot", vs. the greed of collecting a reward bonus for downing an American, when they see what was left of their buddy after he met 2000 pounds of HBX-6 the day before. So, day after day as we did in Vietnam, we require our aviators to wait until they are fired on, before we allow them to defend themselves (and that with Portland cement). History has shown us again and again that a defensive war cannot be fought and won. This nation's brave and dedicated military aviators are being asked to patrol the hostile skies of Iraq with Portland cement strapped onto their jets. In addition to non-explosive cement, we are wasting precious precision guidance systems to deliver that cement, with ineffective results. After all, they are still being shot at. I fear the day when we will see a captured American aviator on CNN, being asked by some Iraqi SAM operator to condemn America for this or that "atrocious criminal act". Will the aviator be thinking at that particular moment about the fact that had we been delivering 2000 pounds of laser guided HBX-6 instead of Portland cement each time an aircraft was targeted that maybe, just maybe, he would be home in the arms of his loved ones instead of the Iraqi SAM operator that had been targeting his patrol the last few weeks. What I will really want to know when that particular moment arrives will be this, "what will our leadership be thinking?" Probably something along the lines of, "damn fool, what was he doing dropping Portland cement? Didn't he realize they were trying to kill him?" **COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for nonprofit research and educational purposes only.[Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ] DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
