Conference quark::mennotes

    
    
    I don't know if this is the same thing or not, but I caugh a blerb
    on the radio this morning that the first female to be qualified as
    a bommer pilot is being prosecuted under the military law for
    adultry.
    
    fred();

    I heard something about that, but I didn't get the details.  It is
    interesting to see the reports on the pregnancy rates onboard the ships
    with coed crews.
    
    The Navy is really becoming a laughing stock.  I wonder how much
    further this nonsense has to go before someone starts taking a
    responsible approach to these issues.
    

    
    
    re .2
    
>    The Navy is really becoming a laughing stock.  I wonder how much
>    further this nonsense has to go before someone starts taking a
>    responsible approach to these issues.
    
    You mean like day-care centers on ships.  Or maybe a baby-mount
    on the AA guns so mommy can breast feed while whacking the enemy.
    
    fred();

    
    On the other hand, during WWII the best snipers in the Red Army were
    women.  Its one thing to kill someone from miles off with artillery,
    but it takes a different kind of person to look at someone in the
    face through a telescopic sight and see the expression on their
    face when the bullet hits.---Chilling huh.
    
    fred();

    The real problem seems to be is that we have forgotten the real purpose
    of the military.  We have managed to change it into a grand social
    laboratory to experiment with social ideas as opposed to what its real
    role is to be.
    
    Whenever I hear about things like this I keep thinking about the Dirty
    Harry movie where he put on the review board for Inspectors.  There is
    a woman from the Mayor's office in the room to make sure that a certain
    number of women are promoted to Inspector.  It ends up that a woman
    from the records deparment gets promoted and has never spent one day on
    the street.  Yeah, that's a good way to make sure that the purpose of
    the organization is achieved.
    

    Whelp... the real fallout hasn't happened... The real proof will be
    when there is a dirty little war to fight in a far off place... like
    Nam, and see how well meaningful experiences like this workout.
    
    

    
    
    and then there are those who believe that the next war the U.S.
    Military fights will be in the U.S., and the degredation of the
    U.S. Military may not be such a bad thing......
    
    fred();

    At least the women will have fashionable haircuts when they train so
    that they don't lose any self-esteem.
    
    I love it.  These people are paid and trained to kill people as quickly
    and efficiently as possible and we are going to worry about
    self-esteem.
    

    How bout the one who decided not to go to the Gulf War because she
    thought killing was a bad thing. WE paid for her college ed to become a
    doctor to care for our wounded.... 

    I really wonder what the liberals say to each other when these issues
    come out.  I am sure they must have wonderful conversations and end up
    congratulating themselves for the effectiveness of their philosophies.
    
    I wonder which brain cells that affect logic are non-functioning in
    these people.
    

    Well, we certainly don't worry about the ruminations of crackpots.
    
    DougO

    
    How does the Israeli military handle these situations? 
    
    I don't think the liberals say anything to each other when these
    'issues' come out.  
    
    The fact is that some women are going to get pregnant and wish
    leave the service. Other women will make other choices.  
    Some men are going to become pacifists and wish to leave the service. 
    Other men will make other choices. 
    Other people will do other things and want to change their minds 
    before or after they have been trained to do 
    certain jobs and they will either figure out a way to get what they
    want or they'll stay with it and get out as soon as it is possible.
    That's life. That's the way people are. 
    
    If our military has to go to war again some women will acquit
    themselves well and some men will do the same.  Others won't.
    Haven't we figured this out yet?
    
    angela
    
    
    

    re .10
    
    Probably something like, "Reason and logic be damned, full speed ahead".
    
    re .11
    
    >Well, we certainly don't worry about the ruminations of crackpots.
    
    Speaks volumes when you stop to think about it.
    
    fred (*^});

    .12
    
    "If our military has to go to war again some women will acquit
    themselves well and some men will do the same.  Others won't. Haven't
    we figured this out yet?"
    
    Haven't we figured out that we must demand that people live up to the
    commitments they make?  Haven't we figured out that when people make
    individual choices they have profound effects on others?  Haven't we
    figured out that when someone gives a promise that we have a right to
    expect them to keep that promise, despite any personal inconvenience
    that might entail?
    
    It is not a question of who, theoretically, can or cannot do a job, but
    rather what is to be expected from people who commit to do something
    and don't live up to their word.
    

    

    If you want to read some things about what war is really about, go
    read the "Sharps Rifles" series by Bernard Cornwell.  The "hero"
    of the books is fictional but the descriptions of the battles are
    historically accurate.  The description of the battles is rather
    graphic.  Based on the Iberian (Portugal and Spain) campaign of 
    Wellington during the Napoleonic War.

    Cornwell also has a new series on the American Civil War but I haven't
    read any of those yet.  
    
    fred();

    I agree wholeheartedly with .14.  There is a wide gulf between people
    from the "honor and integrity" camp and the "what works for me at the
    moment" camp.  I have about zero tolerance for the latter.

    Some men go through boxing careers (including making it to the
    Heavyweight title) and then wimp out of basic training for the
    Marines.

    Another guy (in a Heavyweight title fight) CRIED between rounds.
    He bawled like a little baby and refused to fight.
    
    The entire boxing world should be ashamed of itself.  They should
    ban it as a sport.  They should crawl on their hands and knees and
    apologize for ruining this country, not to mention the military.

    Or - gee, we could say that individuals are responsible (as individuals) 
    for decisions and actions, and let's not use this stuff as handy excuses
    to punish all sorts of others who weren't even involved.

    What a concept.

    Where is my decoder ring??? I don't understand the point your trying to
    make?

    Anyone who hates boxing could USE the actions of these boxers (the
    guy who quit basic training in the Marines and the guy who cried
    during a Heavyweight title match) to do the bashing/trashing against
    boxing that they wanted to do in the first place.

    It wouldn't change a thing.  These guys are still individuals every
    bit as much as the individuals mentioned in this topic are individuals.

    Five of the women in one of the "sex scandles" of the Army have
    recanted their accusations, saying they were pressured into making
    false statements.  
    
    fred();

    The Army is responsible for the true sexual assaults on women
    *AND* bullying a few other women into making such charges.

    I'd call that an Army 'sex scandal', in both cases.

    By the way, I know a man who denied making sexual assaults on
    his own children then later admitted he'd done it.
    
    Would you like to make a point of NOT believing men's denials
    about such charges based on this case?
    

    
    Should we use that one example to justify convicting _every_ man of
    of sex-creimes just because he is accused.  That is a lot closer
    to what is going on--ala the case of hte college student.
    fred();

    
    You want to hang every raped woman as a false accuser based on
    one case, though.
    
    Your idea of equality, right?
    

    
    And just where did I say that?
    
    fred();

    
    So you don't distrust rape accusations in general due to individual
    examples of false claims?
    
    Good.
    

    
    I thought it was general principle in our country--or should be--that
    _everyone_ should be considered innocent until proven quilty.
    fred();

    
    Do you include rape victims in this, or should they be regarded
    as guilty of false claims until proven innocent?
    

    
    >
    >Do you include rape victims in this, or should they be regarded
    >as guilty of false claims until proven innocent?
    
    The rape victim is not the one on trial.  I thougt you've pointed
    that our repeatedly ourself.  Women who accuse men of rape rarely
    go to jail--even when it is is _proven_ they are lying.
    
    fred();

    
    So it's ok to presume that rape victims are guilty of false
    accusations because they probably won't be prosecuted for 
    this?
    
    So much for _everyone_ being presumed innocent...
    
    

    So what happens to these women of the Army who have made FALSE
    acusations? They will get sent to their bedroom, without any desert? A
    slap on the hand? The men who have been accused will carry this for the
    rest of their lives in their records.. Souns like a real fair game to
    me... 

    So what happens to the MEN in the Army who pressured these women
    to make false accusations?  They will get sent to their bedrooms,
    without any desert?  A slap on the hand?

    The women who are now being criticized (even though **THEY** are
    the ones who came forward to say they'd been pressured and to clear
    the accused) will carry this for the rest of their lives in their
    records.

    Sounds like a real fair game?  Ha.

    .32 Again your sailing waters unknown. I know, for I have been to court
    with these men who have been accused. I have also see what is done when
    a woman makes false claim. A slap on the hand. And the mans life is
    ruined. Have you been in court Suzane? Or are you shooting from the
    hip?...again....

    Yes, I've been in court.

    I watched a man confess (plead guilty) to child molestation of two
    children under 10, and his sentence was 90 days in the county jail.
    He served 45 days (with time off for good behavior.)

    I testified against this man at his sentencing (although he claimed
    that the two kids were isolated incidents, another child had come
    forward to testify that this guy had TRIED to initiate sex with
    this child as well.)

    The defense attorney demolished this other child on the stand, of
    course.  The guy served 45 days.

    In the same courtroom, I saw a 19 year old girl who merely ***TRIED***
    to cash a stolen check for $200 get TWO YEARS in the state prison for
    it.  Talk about showing this judge's priority.  Almost stealing $200
    was a lot more serious than molesting two children.

    As for the kids, their lives were ruined - their father was so stressed
    that he died of a heart attack a couple of years later at the age of 43.

    The molestor didn't seek counseling and didn't pay the kids' counseling
    bills, so he eventually had to serve his suspended sentence in the
    state prison (but only because the family really pushed for it.)

    I've been in court, George.

    re: .31
    
    My understanding is that they did NOT make false accusations.
    They were brought in, questioned about their relationships
    and told the investigators that the sex was consenual.  The
    investigators responded by saying that due to the nature
    of the relationship, ie superior officer, it was considered
    rape regardless of whether or not the sex was consenual.
    
    The women finally came forward because they did not like
    the quantity and seriousness of the charges being levied
    against men who did not rape them.  Personally I think
    they should be commended for what they did, their military
    careers are about as wrecked as anyone else that was accused
    at this point.  
    
    Military law is what probably should be taken out and shot.
    

    Thanks, Mary-Michael!!

    It's quite a difference to discover that these women tried from
    Square One to say that the sex was with consent, but Army law
    changed their stories FOR them.

    All those who tried to blast the hell out of these women can
    take it back now.

    I am interested in these cases more to see how the Army handles the
    misconduct of its senior officers.  Everyone who's ever been a
    commissioned officer *KNOWS* the rules about fraternization, and how
    much more severe should be the penalties for sexual misconduct with
    subordinates.  It seems like the investigators really wanted to root
    out the most severe scandal they could, though, so they pushed these
    subordinates to label the encounters rape.  Some buckled under that
    pressure- and have since recanted.  So now we have evidence of
    investigatory misconduct, evidence of sexual misconduct, and evidence
    of false accusation under pressure.  They all deserve punishment, but
    clearly the guilt of the first two types of misconduct should mitigate 
    the punishments for the third type of misconduct.  If, that is, the
    Army wants to impress the rest of the officer corps with examples of
    properly applied discipline, which is the whole point of their having
    an independent judicial code in the first place.
    
    DougO