Israel Combat Women. Why?
Read below if you have intellectual courage…
Countries Willing to Sacrifice Women in Combat, by abolishing Chivalry.
Aka… “Are Women in Israel Fighting in Combat?
America… Israel… Australia… Canada… Britain… Poland… Romania… Denmark… Sweden… France… Germany… Netherlands… New Zealand… Norway…China… etc.
Source: Treatise: ‘Are Women in Israel Fighting in Combat?’ 2017 Book COMBAT WOMEN by Allan Ivarsson available at Amazon.com in Paperback & Kindle.
American Female Courage and Tragedy…
“In the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, wars without typical front lines, Lt. col. Tammy Duckworth lost her legs when the Black Hawk she was piloting was shot down over the Sunni Triangle in 2004. Monica Lin Brown, a medic, was awarded a Silver Star for running through gunfire to get to her battle buddies while deployed to Afghanistan in 2007. She was attached to an infantry unit; they weren’t supposed to take her “outside the wire,” but needed a medic.” (i)
(i) Business Insider Australia: Brief Article… ‘Female Israeli Soldiers Are Proving Themselves in Combat’ by Allison Churchill Sep 26, 2012. (A.I. comments… “They have been doing that since 1947… a year before I was born.”)
More information about Duckworth and the Question… “Should Women Fight in Overseas Combat?” … The Christian Science Monitor Article: “Women in combat: US military on verge of making it official.” By Anna Mulrine Staff writer Washington. (ii)
The additional concern… Why are Countries abolishing Chivalry? Why are we now willing to sacrifice women in combat? Why have we unwisely in the 20th Century into the 21st Century dumped the ancient laws of chivalry in which men do the fighting in the fields of battle and women protect their homes?
Are we a better society? In some ways yes and even far cleverer but in some ideas, we are more backward.
We should be striving to eliminate the ‘Habit of War’ but instead Politicians have decided to encourage the ‘Habit of War’ to continue. And most of these politicians have not even fought in a street fight against hoodlums, let alone fought in a war.
It is easy to sum up these inferior thinking politicians… “All mouth… no guts”.
Many women throughout history have proven that they have courage not only equal to men but many times more courageous than some men. But is it the right thing to do sending women into overseas combat?
Before we move forward into the core disturbing political decisions to send women into overseas war zones, first we must take a brief look at the ‘Battle of Long Tan’ Vietnam and think about the impact of lives that were destroyed by this terrible war. This battle is about male Australians and New Zealanders who fought Communist North Vietnamese.
Battle of Long Tan Vietnam
18th August 1966
In A Rubber Plantation
In Phuoc Tuy Province South Vietnam.
“During the battle of Long Tan, 108 Australian and New Zealand soldiers fought and held off a North Vietnamese force of over 2,000 men.” #
“18 Australians and an estimated 245 Vietnamese lost their lives.” #
“Both sides claimed Victory.” #
# Quotes from the 2019 film, ‘Danger Close’ starring Travis Fimmel and Luke Bracey and many other great actors that all worked hard and suffered, to portray the truth about this tragic battle against tyranny.
“This film is dedicated to all those who fought and died in the Battle of Long Tan – August 18, 1966.” #
Allan Ivarsson comments… Because the Vietnamese retreated, they did not win the Battle at Long Tan. The average age of most of the Australians that fought and died in this battle were 19 years, 20 years and 21 years. Most were ‘Conscripted’ and were not volunteers.
“Soon after the battle, Delta Company 6 RAR were awarded a Presidential Unit Citation for their extraordinary heroism at Long Tan. This is one of the highest U.S. military honours for gallantry that can be awarded.” #
“It took over 45 years before the Australian Government fully recognised the heroism and bravery of the soldiers of Delta Company.” #
A.I. comments… It too 45 years for Australian Politicians to recognise the courage and sacrifice made by young Aussies and New Zealanders at Long Tan.
Politicians conscripted men and forced them to fight, be maimed and died in Vietnam and did not have the decency and intelligence to follow the history of the battles and promptly give recognition to all of the heroic men who fought in Long Tan and other battles in Vietnam.
Now you know why I do not have much respect for politicians in Australia. Their apathy is high in every subject. Their focus is on their own self and are not concerned about their country and are not striving to do the right thing. Patriotism amongst politicians is weak and their logic is too emotional and knee jerk reaction in politics; they constantly fail to fix their incompetence in thinking which thrives in our Parliaments, Federal and State Governments. That incompetence is not acceptable, not now, not ever.
It is time for all Australian Politicians to lift their game and wake up. They are duty bound to serve the people.
Fortunately not one female combat soldier was in this war or the carnage would have been seriously, terribly higher. Chivalry still thrived in society during the Vietnam War period.
Imagine, if Chivalry had not existed in our society and Women had been conscripted to fight combat in Vietnam how terrible the female ‘bloodbath’ would have been. Women of the ‘Baby Boomers’ generation have enjoyed a life living into old age, not maimed, not killed by the insanity of men that have now dumped the values of chivalry and now encourage females to become ‘COMBAT WOMEN’.
Published April 28, 2010 with Lyrics on the Screen.
Two other Musical versions are posted at the end of this Combat Women treatise.
Followed by interesting important comments.
This is one of my responses extracted from my book COMBAT WOMEN.
Cosmic Law on ‘Women in the Military’ states…
“Thou shalt not send women into overseas combat.”
“Thou shalt only train volunteer women for home defence combat, in case of invasion.”
“Thou shalt not draft/conscript women into the military.”
“Thou shalt ensure that only women who volunteer, should be accepted into the military for duty in line with their natural abilities, health and trained skills.”
Freedom Values starts with one National House Rule… all forms of anti-freedom Totalitarianism are rejected.
Drafting women into combat is a form of bully unchivalrous ‘Totalitarianism’.
And now for the Aka Question…
Are Women in Israel Fighting in Combat?
Politicians are too often a naïve bunch of thinkers, especially those politicians that have never served in the military and have no experience in ‘Tour of Duty’ in actual combat. Such politicians like Carter and McConnell are clueless about reality. They should not even be demanding the USA to push women into combat, let alone, also including the objective like McConnell that women should be registered for the draft. As I have indicated earlier, such thinking inevitably down the track makes it possible for Governments to draft women into a tour of duty as combat soldiers. That kind of thinking and legislation is disgracefully obscene. And I will not give McConnell any quarter over this insane dangerous idea.
Jodi Rudoren wrote January 25, 2013 on the titled subject Middle East for The New York Times … Looking to Israel for Clues on Women in Combat… (iii)
“While more than 92 percent of I.D.F jobs are now open to women – they are fighter pilots, infantry officers, naval captains and Humvee drivers – just 3 percent serve in combat roles.” (iii)
A.I. comments… It must be always remembered that women in the Israeli military are fighting on their own home base ground against invasion. And the primary attackers are ‘Palestinian Muslims’ backed by Hamas and other Islamic Organisations all focused on the complete destruction of Israel as their number one, not negotiable, no compromise for peace mandate, priority. The dreams of a permanent peace settlement between Palestine and Israel, will never happen, because the Qur’an and the teachings of the example of Muhammad will never let it happen. The idea that non-Muslims can live in peace, is not acceptable to anti-freedom apartheid Islam. Everyone must submit to Islam or be killed. Most politicians in today’s Western Society cannot comprehend this belief system reality, hence their naïve decision-making process is intellectually backward and completely stupid. McConnell fits this inferior thinking mentality well. He is a good living example of “stupid is as stupid does”.
In an article dated June 8, 2016 by David Catanese, Senior Politics Writer for U.S. News & World Report… titled… The Year of Trump… he wrote… (iv)
“In South Carolina on Dec. 7 – the anniversary of Pearl Harbor – Trump went onstage and, uncharacteristically, carefully read a statement calling for a “total and complete” ban on Muslims entering the U.S. “We have no choice,” he said to cheers.” (iv)
“The proposed temporary barring of Muslims was panned by members of both parties, leaders of religious groups and international heads of state.” (iv)
“Party chairs of the first three nominating states condemned Trump’s call. House Speaker Paul Ryan said it was “not who we are as a party”. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell described it as “completely inconsistent with American values”.” (iv)
A.I. comments… Here we go again McConnell says Trumps conviction is “completely inconsistent with American values”. This McConnell is the same political clown that sees nothing wrong with forcing women into registered draft, for the high risk of being further pushed down the track, into combat tour of duty, as the mindset of inferior thinking politicians becomes even more conditioned, brain wrecked, to believing in the disgraceful mentality of saying it’s okay to send women into war with men. Based on McConnell’s choice of words, on barring Muslim immigration… drafting women is “completely inconsistent with American values”. For the philosophical history books, the more I learn about McConnell thinking, the more I realise that such men are destructive of the wholesome wellbeing of a country.
There are far too many statements which are made, fired from the hip, by inferior thinking people that sounds good to non-thinkers, but are in reality, false knowledge statements, phony ideas, designed to manipulate others to submit to dangerous untruthful ideas. Trumps suggestion to stop acceptance of ‘Islamic Immigration’ is absolutely “consistent with American Values” and is consistent with the rules of pragmatic survival common sense, the right of the person to oppose and reject invasion of their home, land and country by potentially dangerous belief system ideas, in the minds of people that believe in totalitarian cultures. McConnell and many other politicians are not that bright, they just don’t get it, they cannot comprehend reality that a person’s belief system is the reason for their thinking and behaviour.
Acceptance of anti-freedom apartheid Islam which clearly opposes the values of ‘Liberty’ and rejects the American Constitution and rejects the First Amendment, because Islam rejects ‘Freedom of Speech’, indicates absolutely that Islam and ‘True Muslims’ that believe in Islam are “completely inconsistent with American values”. Yes, I am using McConnell’s favourite words to describe reality.
The Truth is that Trumps statement and objective is correct, the banning of Muslim entry into the United States is essential to protect the very values of ‘Liberty’ which true non-Muslim Americans do cherish. Rejection of Islam is exactly “completely consistent with American values”.
Freedom of religion does not work with Islam, because Islam rejects ‘Freedom’ and thus automatically rejects ‘Freedom of Religion’. And inferior thinking people like McConnell cannot comprehend that reality. Such wrong thinking in a political power position, makes a politician like McConnell an enemy of the State. McConnell is not the only one with this inferior stupid thinking. Such fools like McConnell exist in every Western Nation that is why the West is now living a constant political conflict, which is damaging our justice system, our commercial system, and our freedom to walk the streets day and night in peaceful safety.
We have enough human nature problems without adding the danger of anti-freedom ‘Jihad Muslims’ into the societal conflict equation. The societal mess we are in today completely exists because of the greed, naivety and absolute stupidity of coward politicians.
Politicians are accountable for allowing Islam to invade the West. They failed to study the ‘Belief System’ of Islam, before opening the gates and that idiotic failure, makes politicians guilty of treason, by intent or by negligence.
Further… David Catanese writes… (iv)
“…a Washington Post/ABC News poll taken in mid-December found that a majority of GOP voters agreed with Trump. Republicans endorsed the measure by a margin of 59 percent to 38 percent, showing its appeal across large swaths of the GOP electorate.” (iv)
“It wouldn’t be until weeks later that exit polls of the primaries showed similar results. In South Carolina, 75 percent of GOP primary voters indicated they agreed with Trump’s position. In the five states that voted on March 15 – Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Missouri and Illinois – about two-thirds of Republicans were on board with the ban.” (iv)
“Trump has since recalibrated his remarks a bit, saying the ban was merely a suggestion. But his willingness to foist the radical idea to the forefront of the debate underscored how far away GOP elites had drifted from the base of their party.” (iv)
A.I. comments… I would not call Trumps proposal to ban immigration of Muslims into America as radical. If anything is radical, it is the ‘Belief System’ of Islam and the insane thinking of Muhammad the founder of violent ‘habit of war’ Islam. Trumps proposal is pure survival common sense. Only true ex-Muslims should be allowed to immigrate into the West. A person’s ‘Belief System’ is the reason for their thinking and behaviour. I have said this many times, and shall keep repeating it, until the entire human population comprehends this truthful reality.
In a Review article, titled “Stop Using Israel’s Example to Justify the Barbaric Practice of Drafting Women into Combat” written by David French February 12, 2016 at National Review (v) he wrote…
“Like clockwork, whenever anyone at National Review – including the editors – writes in opposition to opening all combat jobs to women or (even worse) drafting women into ground combat, there is predictable hue and cry from the Left. “But Israel! You conservatives couldn’t possibly be criticizing Israel, could you?” Perhaps the worst example comes from New York magazine, where writer Eric Levitz accuses NR of “anti-Jewish propaganda” and painting Israelis as “savagely cruel primitives” because our editors had the audacity to rightly label the proposal to draft mothers and daughters into ground combat “barbaric”. Let’s be clear, National Review was decrying as “barbaric” the notion of drafting women into ground-combat roles. Drafting women into non-combat roles isn’t barbaric, it’s simply unnecessary. Against that backdrop, Levitz’s piece is sheer, unmitigated nonsense. It’s a historical idiocy.” (v)
“When critics attempt to justify the Pentagon’s decision to open all combat jobs to women – or drafting women into those roles – by referring to the Israel Defense Forces, they’re betraying considerable ignorance. Israel’s history with women in combat is vastly overblown, its present policy is more restrictive than the United States. To the extent there’s a valid comparison with the United States, Israel’s history should stand as a cautionary tale for American policy-makers.” (v)
A.I. comments… If the article is still available in the decades ahead it is an important read, there is far more wisdom identification tabled, than I can insert in this case study. But it is clearly evident that the women who fought for Israel during the 1947 and thereafter creation of Israel, did so out of survival necessity, because they were under attack by Islam and still are. As David French correctly wrote… “Israel, with a tiny population surrounded by much larger, hostile neighbours, could very well find itself waging the kind of desperate war for survival that would require every able-bodied adult to wield a rifle.” (v)
No such scenario exists in Australia, Canada and America, we are not being invaded, and we do not need to send women into combat. Fighting on home base soil for mandatory survival reasons, is entirely different to sending women into overseas combat. And National Review is absolutely right… such a policy is ‘barbaric’ and is unnecessary even for non-combat roles.
When courageous pioneer women in the 19th, 18th and 17th century, fought in America with knives, guns and axes, against Bears, Wild Cats, and other predators, they did so out of survival necessity. The same is true when they had to fight ‘Native Americans’ and Outlaws that threatened to rape, kill and enslave them. These pioneer women fought to survive on their turf, their home base land. They were not overseas, fighting in a foreign war.
Whilst some rare women are outstanding in ability compared to men, on the average men are naturally stronger, able to lift more and run faster and fight harder than women. That fact does not make women in rights any less equal than men, it just simply identifies that each sex, man and women evolves at birth with natural abilities, and strength and skills variances. And that fact is a good thing, for what a boring world we would live in, if all of us men and women, all had the same talents, skills and ability. There is a place for men and a place for women in society, each sex, each individual, serves an important contribution to the wholesome wellbeing of a good living society.
Combat training and readiness may be an advantage on home base soil for defence against invasion, but training women for overseas combat is barbaric and is unacceptable. And forcing women into draft, even in non-combat rolls, during peace time conditions is not acceptable period, not even for defence on home base soil.
The Editors of ‘National Review’ wrote on February 9th, 2016 under the subject title, “Only a Barbaric Nation Drafts its Mothers and Daughters into Combat” … the following selected paragraphs… The Editors presentation of reality is so well written and philosophically accurately truthful, about reality, that ‘Blue Light Cosmic Philosophy’ believes it should be included in all historical philosophy books, generation after generation, as an important ‘Cosmic Message’ that drafting women into combat is not acceptable now and not ever. In the name of decency, chivalry and caring wellbeing of a wholesome society, working towards elimination of the insane ‘Habit of War’… drafting women into combat and even allowing volunteer women to fight in overseas combat must always, without exception, be outlawed. Read the Editors valid concerns… (vi)
“The most disappointing moment of Saturday night’s debate came when Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and Marco Rubio each embraced the idea that women should register with the selective service, making it possible for America to draft women into ground combat. The argument for registration is based on the new Pentagon policy opening up all combat jobs to women. Women have served in non-combat roles for decades without any serious push for selective-service registration ensuing. In fact, the Supreme Court, in Rostker v. Goldberg (1981), has used the fact that men and women have different roles as justification for rejecting constitutional objections to the all-male draft.” (vi)
“We have repeatedly condemned the Obama administration’s decision to open all combat roles to women, and we have mainly done so by citing a combination of contemporary studies and historical experience to make the case that gender-integrated ground-combat units are less effective than their all-male counterparts. But that is not the only argument. Indeed, there are other fundamental reasons to oppose not just the presence of women in the infantry but their forcible conscription into its ranks. Such a policy inverts natural law and the rules that have grounded our civilization for thousands of years.” (vi)
“Men should protect women. They should not shelter behind mothers and daughters. Indeed, we see this reality every time there is a mass shooting. Boyfriends throw themselves over girlfriends, and even strangers and acquaintances often give themselves up to save the woman closest to them. Who can forget the story of 45-year-old Shannon Johnson wrapping his arms around 27-year-old Denise Peraza and declaring “I got you” before falling to the San Bernardino shooters’ bullets?” (vi)
“Ground combat is barbaric. Even today, men grapple with men, killing each other with anything they can find. Returning veterans describe countless incidents of hand-to-hand combat with jihadists. In his book about the Battle of Ganigal, Into the Fire, Medal of Honor recipient Dakota Meyer describes just such an encounter with a Taliban fighter.” (vi)
A.I. comments… The story of the brutal fight in the book, a desperate unarmed fight for survival into the dirt, to the death, using a found rock the size of a baseball to savagely kill the enemy…is truthfully, a disturbing description about the barbaric side of real combat. If we don’t face hard core reality and recognise the insanity of the ‘Habit of War’ we will never stop this madness. A person’s belief system is the reason for their thinking and behaviour and anti-freedom apartheid Islam as instructed in the very fallible Qur’an, is directly responsible for perpetuation of the ‘Habit of War’ in ‘Islamic Cultures’ against non-Muslim cultures.
“That is war. It is not a video game. It is not a movie, where young Hollywood starlets’ karate-kick their way through masses of inept thugs and goons. When we order women into ground combat, we are ordering them into situations where men larger and stronger than they will show no mercy – crushing the life out of them like Meyer crushed that Taliban.” (vi)
“This is what Ted Cruz was rightly arguing when he called the idea of drafting women into combat “nuts”. The idea that we would force women into combat against “a 220-pound psychopath trying to kill them” – to use Cruz’s memorable phrase – is immoral. Women would die terrible deaths, and when they did, the ripple effects on morale would likely be extreme.” (vi)
A.I. comments… It is hard to fathom where so many politicians that claim to be highly educated get their naïve idiotic thinking from. It does not take a university degree to figure out by pragmatic common sense and sense of decency, that women must never be drafted into combat, nor should they ever be sent into overseas combat, even when they foolishly volunteer for such tour of duty.
In a Brilliant ‘National Review’ article, titled “Women in Combat Endanger Their Fellow Soldiers’ Lives” written by David French September 11th, 2015 (vii) he wrote a football comparison introduction, so true, I wish I had thought of it, but then I don’t follow football, I don’t have time to follow sports, though at random I like to watch sports games, especially Surfing, Boxing, Water Skiing and Athletics, and sometimes football, soccer, basketball, baseball, cricket and racing, bikes, cars and horses, but anyway, French’s valid truthful comments are essential reading for every new generation, during the centuries ahead as part of philosophical historical study. I hope you can access the entire document in the centuries ahead, as it would be a sad loss to lose sight of this important wisdom, unfortunately I can only include abridged extracts, in accordance with copyright law, which gives us the right to review and study ideas, without breaching copyright law, read David French’s truth statement hereunder…
“Imagine, if you will, reading a story that begins, “The NFL announced the results of a year-long study in mixed-gender football teams today, concluding that women not only suffered more injuries than men, but also performed worse in every football-related physical task.” (vii)
“You would likely have two immediate reactions. First, you’d wonder why the NFL actually had to commission a study to discover a reality obvious to every sentient, rational person in the universe – women aren’t as physically strong as men. Then, you’d demand to know what kind of barbarian actually approved a testing process in which real women were injured at wildly disproportionate rates to prove what we all already knew.” (vii)
“The Marine Corps is playing out just such a scenario today. In response to relentless political pressure from social-justice warriors who mistake military service for one long exercise in diversity training, the Marines conducted a nine-month study comparing the performance of all-male infantry units with mixed units in simulated combat environments. The results? (vii)
“Women in a new Marine Corps unit created to assess how female service members perform in combat were injured twice as often as men, less accurate with infantry weapons, and not as good at removing wounded troops from the battlefield.” (vii)
“In fact, this summary doesn’t do justice to the dramatic disparity the study documented. The women weren’t slightly less capable than the men; they were profoundly less capable. All-male units performed better in 93 of 134 categories evaluated, and there were “notable” differences in accuracy in “every individual weapons system.” Physically, the top 25th percentile of women overlapped with the bottom 25th percentile of men, and they possessed less anaerobic power, anaerobic capacity, and aerobic capacity than their male colleagues. Women undergoing entry-level infantry training were injured at “more than six times the rate of their male counterparts.” (vii)
“What does all this mean? It’s quite simple: If you integrate infantry units by gender, more Americans will die, and our enemy will have a better chance to prevail on the battlefield. If you’re less accurate with your weapons, the enemy has a better chance of survival. If you can’t evacuate your wounded as effectively, your wounded are more likely to die. Even in non-combat environments, the training hurts women at a remarkable rate, and units that suffer high training attrition lose combat effectiveness.” (vii)
A.I. comments… David French’s tabling of reality sends a further message, loud and clear that women must never, ever be drafted into combat training and even volunteer women who believe they can cope in battle, in the name of equality of equal rights to fight, must not ever, no not ever be sent overseas into combat. It is reasonable if a country like Israel is being invaded that to desperately survive every man and woman fights on their home base soil in combat. But even then, it is a last resort, and even Israel can currently and does restrict the active participation of women in combat on home soil. We of Australia, New Zealand, America, Canada and many other Nations, including China & Russia do not need to inflame the insanity of war by including women in combat. Such insane thinking commitments to drag women into combat must always be opposed by every Nation on Planet Earth and throughout the Universe, when we spread our civilizations amongst the stars.
It is no coincidence that Ancient Civilizations fought wars with men only. Fighting with Swords, Spears, Axes, Knives, Rocks and bow and arrows. Women traditionally were not strong enough to fight such physical battles often one on one. Even when invading Castles, men pulled towers and other large catapults into position requiring strong tough men in large numbers to move such primitive machines into place for war attack. This was true even during the Riots at Peking in February 1912, during the Boxer Uprising. In the same year 2012, the Titanic sank in the early morning of 15th April. And men sacrificed themselves to save women and children, such is chivalry.
Taking a step back further before, during and after Ancient Civilizations, many Native Tribes existed, the men were the hunters and the women the house keepers and gatherers. This evolving reality over a million years of human history did not happen because chauvinistic men inserted themselves as rulers of women, it evolved out of survival necessity that women stayed behind caring for children and home, whilst men risked their lives hunting for food and fighting battles against enemy tribes, not because they were conquerors like the age of Ancient and Modern Civilizations, but because they fought to protect their families and stood loyally as one with their birthright tribe. That is reality, and was not about equality, it was an evolution process about survival necessity.
Only inferior thinking political coward fools, would approve of drafting women into the military and only weaklings in mind, would approve of women being sent into physical combat.
I refer to David French’s own experience in the military, which he wrote about…
“As our nation grows increasingly divorced from actual military experience, it forgets how intensely physical infantry service is. When I went out on foot patrols in Iraq, I routinely carried 75 extra pounds of gear – including body armor, a rifle, a sidearm, a knife, a basic combat load of ammunition, and a camelback for water. And that was a light load. As a Jag officer, I didn’t even have to tote grenades, communications gear, or any weapon heavier than an M4. When I finished a patrol, I was able to roll back into base, take off my gear, and rest my aching muscles. The guys on the line, by contrast, stayed outside the wire day after day, week after week, and they found themselves carrying full-size, wounded men in the middle of firefights. I’m not sure any of those wounded would want to bleed out for social justice.” (vii)
David French is an attorney, a staff writer at National Review, in obviously 2015 & 2016, and is a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
A.I. comments… In other words, wounded men and women that women cannot physically carry, is bleeding out for naïve thinking social justice that claims women are equal to men in combat. That is like saying men are equal to women in becoming pregnant and delivering babies, through natural process. Only in send up fiction movies can men have babies and likewise only in send up fiction movies can the average woman fight in combat, equal to men. Fiction and truthful reality are two different things. If I had been forced into war as a young man, I would not have wanted women with me, besides the natural attraction distraction, I would be naturally too focused on protecting the woman rather than protecting myself and the combat team of men. I would be distressed if my mates went down, but the distress of seeing a woman maimed or killed, seeing her breasts shredded in battle, would be even worse horror. Men cannot do their job, when worrying about their natural chivalrous instinct to protect women. That natural instinct has always existed since primitive native times, when men and women, identified by pragmatic survival instinct, what supportive rolls each sex must contribute, in order to survive as one team. This reality is something that many political leaders of today cannot comprehend and the reason for such stupidity, is because in reality, they are inferior thinkers, and most are cowards and that fact is easy to prove.
One thing that really throws me for a six, for decades, men and women have been correctly speaking against ‘Domestic Violence’ against women. And now politicians are saying it is okay to draft women into combat and send volunteer women in the military into combat to be killed. Did I miss something? No, I didn’t, politicians today have really lost it between the ears. Yes, I know men often hide the fact that ‘Domestic Violence’ against men is far more common than they will admit, some women are equally as aggressive and violent as men, they mostly don’t use their fists, they use a weapon like a shoe or throwing things at their husbands, boyfriends, sex partner. In my treatise 2015 “Violence Against Women” published in 2018 COMPENDIUM II available at Amazon.com in Paperback & Kindle, this serious issue is dealt with, but for now read on about the misguiding thinking of politicians that want to send women into combat.
It is very important that the following historical Internet document is not lost and is retained as an important philosophical guidance to reality for all destined generations to come, hence I have taken the ‘Liberty’ to publish this imperative understanding in the ‘Blue Light Cosmic Philosophy’ records. The message is this brief statement is imperative to the protection of women and the eternal codes of decency which all men must live by for as long as human existence survives.
It is noted that this document was published on the 8th February 2001 (viii) before 9/11, and no doubt since then, very few people around the globe have read this important statement of reality. This is evident by the fact that many idiot inferior thinking politicians after this date, are making ‘Pro-Support of Sending Women into Combat’ as the mandatory objective of the future.
We must stop the human habit of war, not make it more viciously worse, by adding women to the insanity of war. When we look at the non-human animal world, it is indeed a cruel vicious survival existence. But non-human animals only fight and kill for food and self-defence, human animals fight and kill just because they don’t like someone else’s ideas or right to live free as individuals. Human animals are far crueller and more vicious than non-human animals.
And thus, I table the very important historical statement by Jon Dougherty dated 08/02/2001 titled… “Debunking The Israeli ‘Women In Combat’ Myth” (viii) …
“Despite 225 years of witnessing the horror of wars fought by male American soldiers, there are still a number of idiots – mostly feminists who themselves will never have to face an armed enemy soldier – pushing lawmakers to drop a ban against allowing women in combat.” (viii)
“Israel – a nation of about 6.2 million people constantly at war with its neighbours – allowed women in combat, the idiots shriek. Why, then, must the American military, as regards ground combat roles, remain so androcentric, so ‘male-centered’?” (viii)
“It’s time to debunk the myth, once and for all, that Israel’s experience with allowing women in combat was successful and, therefore, should be duplicated by the Pentagon. It wasn’t successful. It was a disaster by Israel’s own admission.” (viii)
“History shows that the presence of women has had a devastating impact on the effectiveness of men in battle,” wrote John Luddy in July 27, 1994, for the Heritage Foundation backgrounder.” (viii)
“For example, it is a common misperception that Israel allows women in combat units. In fact, women have been barred from combat in Israel since 1950, when a review of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War showed how harmful their presence could be. The study revealed that men tried to protect and assist women rather than continue their attack. As a result, they not only put their own lives in greater danger, but also jeopardized the survival of the entire unit. The study further revealed that unit morale was damaged when men saw women killed and maimed on the battlefield,” Luddy said.” (viii)
“Writes Edward Norton, a reservist in the Israel Defense Forces: “Women have always played an important role in the Israeli military, but they rarely see combat; if they do, it is usually by accident. No one in Israel, including feminists, has any objection to this situation. The fact that the Persian Gulf War has produced calls to allow women on the front lines proves only how little Americans really understand combat.” (viii)
“Few serious armies use women in combat roles. Israel, which drafts most of its young women and uses them in all kinds of military work, has learned from experience to take them out of combat zones. Tests show that few women have the upper-body strength required for combat tasks. Keeping combat forces, all male would not be discriminatory, as were earlier racial segregation schemes in the military, because men and women are different both physically and psychologically,” said the Feb. 5, 1990, National Review.” (viii)
“Furthermore, Israeli historian Martin Van Creveld has written extensively about the failure of the IDF to successfully integrate and use women in combat.” (viii)
“Finally, even Israeli citizens don’t relish the thought of allowing women into combat roles. In 1998, a survey conducted by the Jerusalem Post newspaper found that 56 percent of Israelis don’t want women in combat.” (viii)
“There are now and always will be idiots who say the Pentagon should put women in any combat unit they wish to serve. Most of these people will speak with the ignorance of never having had to experience the horror of combat, as well as the luxury of never having to worry about engaging in armed conflict themselves.” (viii)
“But to use the “Israeli experience” as an allegedly successful model for the U.S. to follow is not only absurd, it’s disingenuous. It is a lie propagated by radical feminists like ex-Democratic Rep. Patricia Schroeder who have falsely claimed that such a goal is merely an extension of “the will of the people.” (viii)
“Perhaps if more lawmakers – and Americans in general – were exposed to military service, the idiots who seem to be dominating this debate wouldn’t have many sympathetic ears.” (viii)
End of historical very important wisdom statement by Jon Dougherty 2001.
A.I. comments… The Ancient Romans and the Ancient Greeks just to name two old civilizations, were intelligent enough to understand why women should not be engaged in physical combat. Today, many politicians in the West have proven by their backward thinking that they are not as smart as the ancient Romans and Greeks. Even Native Americans once inadvertently called by whites ‘Indians’, were smart enough to not involve women in war and hunting.
I believe every politician, man or woman that wants to drag women into combat should be challenged and made to fight in the boxing ring. And if they refuse they should be ‘white feathered’. There is no place for cowards in politics, all mouth and no guts. It is time to say it the way it is and hold these inferior thinking idiots accountable.
If we look around the world today, we can observe that most loud-mouthed feminists are only brave with freedom of speech in a liberty valued society. But very few feminists have the courage to openly speak against ‘Anti-Freedom Apartheid Islam’, which proves they are all mouth and no show, no guts when standing up for protection of ‘Liberty Values’.
Cosmic Law on ‘Women in the Military’ states…
“Thou shalt not send women into overseas combat.”
“Thou shalt only train volunteer women for home defence combat, in case of invasion.”
“Thou shalt not draft/conscript women into the military.”
“Thou shalt ensure that only women who volunteer, should be accepted into the military for duty in line with their natural abilities, health and trained skills.”
Freedom Values starts with one National House Rule… all forms of anti-freedom Totalitarianism are rejected.
Drafting women into combat is a form of bully unchivalrous ‘Totalitarianism’.
There is a photograph taken by Uriel Sinai, a Getty image, of a female soldier from the Israel Defense Forces’ Karakal Battalion, posted on January 25, 2013, (ix) during training near the Israeli-Egyptian border, laying on the ground with a gun mounted, ready for firing action. When idiot politicians see such images, they immediately send the message that Israeli women are engaged in ground combat, therefore they illogically argue there is justification to draft/conscript women into combat and to send women overseas into ground combat. What these peanut brained politicians cannot comprehend is that the Israeli women are trained for home base defence against invasion of Muslims that hate Jews, as instructed in the Qur’an. These Israeli women are not being sent to overseas combat, they are trained for local defence only, just like early pioneer women in Australia, New Zealand and more frequently America had to fight against wild animals and native attacks on occasions. Every man and woman and even children have the right to defend themselves from attack in their own home base country, just like the message 1951 good entertaining Western ‘Westward the Women’ reveals, starring Robert Taylor, John McIntire and Denise Darcel. But common sense indicates true to the values of decency and chivalry, men do not send women into overseas ground combat, not now, not ever.
“…top U.S. defense officials are actively studying other militaries around the globe that have already sent women to combat.” (ix)
“There are roughly a dozen nations that have opened “Close combat roles” to women. Those roles are defined by a 2010 British Ministry of Defense (MOD) study as those that include “engaging an enemy on the ground … while being exposed to hostile fire and a high probability of physical contact with the hostile forces personnel.” (ix)
A.I. comments… So? What’s the point? True… we have a few wrong thinking Nations lead by idiot Politicians that justify each other’s wrong thinking decisions to authorise the engagement of women into combat, in the name of equality recognition and gender-neutral right of women to be cruelly killed, like in the past was the sole responsibility gender specific experience, of men. Now according to inferior thinking politicians with no sense of decency and chivalry codes, women should now be exposed to the same fate.
These ‘gender neutral’ decisions to include women into combat roles is expanding, because several Nations have joined the ‘Mutual Admiration Society for Pushing Women into Combat Rolls’.
All coward politicians supporting this insane decision disgust me no end. I don’t hate any person because of their insane belief systems, like backward thinking Muslims. But, I do hate cowards and traitors. The lowest creep on this earth is a coward and a traitor. I respect the courage of warrior ‘Jihad Muslims’, even though their beliefs are insane; and even though their ideology is an enemy of ‘Freedom Values’ and must be stopped. But I don’t respect Jihad Muslim Martyrs, suicide bombers and knife killing and gun killing fanatics attacking innocent peace loving, men, women and children. These so-called Muslim Martyrs are all cowards and are only pretend to be brave, because they naively believe they are going to paradise after death. Any person with intelligence knows there is no such thing as Paradise and that such an idea is a myth.
“In many parts of the world, these efforts have moved quickly once they’ve begun. Though women in Poland were not even accepted at the nation’s military academies until 1999, for example, the country passed a law in 2004 requiring women with college nursing or veterinary degrees to register for compulsory service.” (ix)
A.I. comments… That 2004 law was a stupid law, I wonder how many women decided thereafter not to take up college nursing or veterinary degrees, after this law was passed? But this imposition law as tabled by this National Geographic News report by Anna Mulrine dated January 25, 2013 (ix) does not mention that Poland has joined the ‘Mutual Admiration Nations Society’ to include women in combat. But on the other hand, Poland like all Nations in Europe are very vulnerable to invasion across their borders as happened in World War II. Hence, it is reasonable for women to be trained in combat home base defence, in the event of invasion. But it is not acceptable, not now, not ever to send women into combat outside of their home base.
The report focuses on Nations that now encourage women to be sacrificed in combat. If I was a woman, I would be deeply concerned by this decision to drag me into forced overseas combat, where standing beside men in battle, I cannot be concerned about sexual privacy, in any way, no room for embarrassment, because on the battlefield all men and women are united… nudity is on the table, when injuries and toiletry becomes essential reality. There is no place for different sex apprehension founded upon the inhibitions of seeing too much of the opposite sex in military camps and in combat. Every politician that supports sending women should be mandatorily posted into combat to expose them to the brutal reality of war.
The National Geographic 2013 news report (ix) was followed by another CNN report published on August 20, 2015 by Ashley Fantz, subject title… “Women in combat: More than a dozen nations already doing it”. (x) Sadly, mainstream media doesn’t table opinions they just post the news as it stands, excited by their clever ability to write the facts of history, as they see it. Of course, the question of whether it is right for society, and whether it is the right thing to do, is not on the table. Our politicians and military leaders must be automatically right, because they support the idea of sacrificing women in combat.
Our late 20th into 21st Century Society is truly being brain-wrecked by wrong philosophical thinking. People are losing their sense of values and sense of decency. And religion and psychology is not fixing the problem, it is making things worse.
“Of the dozen or so countries that allow women to be part of combat units, here are those with the fewest restrictions on what women can do:” (ix)
“Australia: Aside from the U.S., this is the country to most recently remove barriers to its front-line units, provided women meet the physical requirements. In 2011, Australia’s defense minister announced that the last 7 percent of positions that had been closed to women-including Special Forces, infantry, and artillery…would be opened up to them.” (ix)
A.I. comments… I remember back during the Vietnam War when conscription was enforced that Australian men, went to great lengths by going to University to get a degree qualification to avoid being forcibly conscripted and sent to Vietnam. Some got lucky when they gained their University Degree, the involvement of Australian Conscripts in the war ended, and they avoided the war. It was not a fair conscript method, being a luck of the draw ballot, and many of those forced to fight in Vietnam did not have the pass level ability to get into University. I know several conscripted Veterans forced into this war that survived and suffered nightmare experiences for the rest of their life, being subjected to psychiatry treatment, not that false knowledge psychiatry has ever solved anything. Mental scars exist forever. Imagine if women had been conscripted/drafted into the Vietnam War and the Korean War. The horror and senseless sacrifice of men, was a constant reality. Politicians safely stay at home, directing others to be sacrificed in combat. And women engaged in such wars would have suffered equally as much as the men suffered. And that is what American and Australian politicians want… woman to be sacrificed and women to equally suffer like men. When does this insane mentality by coward politicians stop?
Do you remember the insane battle of Pork Chop Hill in Korea, when politicians sacrificed American lives for no good reason whatever? A battle which had no real meaning and purpose, and wasted human lives denied the right to live? Do you remember the true story of the carnage on Hamburger Hill in Vietnam? Do you remember the sacrifice of young 18-year-old plus older, Aussie soldiers on the bloody cruel death Kokoda Trail in World War II? Imagine if women had been engaged in these three historical gruesome battles what the horrible carnage would have been like, all in the name of equal rights.
Female, Senator the Honourable Marise Payne, became the first female Australian Minister of Defence, appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Liberal Prime Minister of Australia, Malcolm Turnbull on the 21st September 2015.
Stephen Smith MP under the leadership of Labor Puppet Prime Minister Julia Gillard made the announcement decision to open the last 7 percent of positions encouraging women to be offered more combat opportunities.
Julia Gillard and Malcolm Turnbull have one thing in common for the history books. Labor Gillard backstabbed Kevin Rudd to seize power. And Liberal Turnbull backstabbed Tony Abbott to seize power. Both clearly think sending women into combat is okay.
Neither of these two, Gillard and Turnbull would have the guts to fight in a street fight, let alone go into combat. And they lead this country?
Stephen Smith’s spouse is actress Jane Seymour and I am a fan of Seymour, so I must with confidence assume Smith is a good guy. So why did he approve that women must be allowed to fight in combat? Does the Minister of Defence really have the power to decide whether women can be allowed to fight in combat or not? Smith never served or fought in the military, so why would he approve women being sent into combat? Were his hands tied behind his back when Gillard decided it is okay to sacrifice women in war? If so, why didn’t he resign immediately, rather than have his name tagged as approving women been sent into combat?
Many questions need to be answered. Does the Minister of Defence really have any power of decision over the Defence Forces, or are they just a puppet controlled by the Prime Minister?
And Marise Payne is the Minister of Defence, and she also has no military experience. Has Australian Politics gone mad? Why would we appoint inexperienced non-military personnel as the Minister of Defence? Probably because the Prime Minister wants a Puppet they can control. No wonder Australian Politicians has risen to new heights of becoming inferior thinkers, with no pragmatic common sense between the ears.
“Australia: The country opened combat positions to women in September 2011, allowing them to join special operations units in Afghanistan and the general infantry and armored units. Women are also allowed to become naval divers. Australia’s former Prime Minister Julia Gillard, the first woman in that position, backed the move. “I have a view that men and women are equal,” she told the Australian, a local news outlet, in April 2011. “A few years ago, I heard [defense chief General] Peter Cosgrove say that men and women should have an equal right to fight and die for their country. I think he is right about that.” As of June 2014, 63 Australian women had signed up for front-line roles, the Guardian reported.” (x)
A.I. comments… For the history books, Julia Gillard Labor Party was not the first woman in Australia voted in as Prime Minister, because she was not voted in by the people. The people voted for Kevin Rudd as PM. Julia Gillard backstabbed Rudd to gain office, backed by her belief in equal rights to shaft her boss, without approval by the people.
Julia Gillard has never fought in military combat, and has never served in the defence forces and yet she thinks it’s okay to send women into combat to die for their country in the name of having the equal right to suffer violent cruel death, simply to prove women are equal. Such thinking is stupid and disgraceful. Gillard couldn’t fight in the boxing ring, she will never have that kind of physical courage and yet she sees nothing wrong with sacrificing other women. Not surprised, Gillard also supported Hillary Clinton for President, who likewise believes it’s okay to sacrifice women in combat. Neither of them could physically fight their way out of a paper bag, let alone fight in combat. All mouth- no guts.
True… men and women are equal in peaceful society in human rights and career opportunities. But supporting ‘equality of the sexes rights’ is not a justified excuse to sacrifice women in combat roles, just to prove they can equally suffer and die just like men, so that society can prove that women are equal to men, by looking at all the memorial headstones in memory of women, sacrificed by men, so that less men may die, being saved by the courage of naïve women. Are we nuts? Our societal reasoning has lost its way. Gillard would never be prepared to fight in a street fight, let alone combat, what right does she have to approve of the sacrifice of women in combat? I respect courage, but I have no respect for male and female leaders that have never taken a physical beating in fights that then say it’s okay in the name of “equality” to sacrifice fellow country persons. Why should I respect such vanity based thinking coward leaders?
General Sir Peter John Cosgrove served in the Australian Defence Services. He fought in the Vietnam War and received the Military Cross in 1971. He is a graduate of the Royal Military College, Duntroon. Now I respect his courage and strength of character. But his philosophy is weak, when as Gillard claimed he said that “men and women should have an equal right to fight and die for their country”. That idea is nonsense. I find it difficult to believe that a man with his military background, approves of sending women into combat, for I know around the Western World, there are thousands of combat veterans from every Nation that do not approve of sending women into combat. And their reasons and concerns are valid.
The argument of equality of rights in the sexes is not a valid justification argument to sacrifice women in combat. I will repeat this again and again, we are trying to eliminate the insane habit of war, not inflame it further by including women in combat.
“Canada: In 1989 Canada opened all combat roles except those involving submarine warfare to women. In 2000, women were given the green light to serve on subs as well. Three years later, the first female was assigned to serve as captain of a Canadian warship, while another woman became the first female deputy commanding officer of a combat arms unit.” (ix)
“Roughly 15 percent of Canadian military forces are now women, while 2 percent of combat troops (99 troops) are female. In 2006, Canada lost its first female soldier… a forward artillery scout… in combat with Taliban forces.” (ix)
“Canada’s military is about 85% men, but women have been allowed in combat since 1989. Women comprise close to 15% of the Canadian fighting force… its regular force and primary reserves. The number of women in combat roles remains small and according to the UK study, Canadian research suggests women are more likely to serve in supportive rather than operational roles.” (x)
A.I. comments… Well Canada is ahead of Australia, in encouraging women to be sent into combat, striving to preserve the ‘Habit of War’ by including women into combat. Some women already, their lives have been sacrificed in combat. I wonder if there will ever be another style ‘Hair’ musical made, like the 1979 film version, starring John Savage, Treat Williams and Beverly D’Angelo, rejecting the insanity of war?
While the hippy mentality is irresponsible, likewise equally irresponsible is sending women into combat. One good indicator so far, is that a large percentage of Canadian women are smart enough to avoid active combat roles, wisely choosing to do supportive duties.
Incidentally, the ending of the film ‘Hair’ was the only film of two movies, and I have watched thousands of films, since the silent era of Charlie Chaplin, which ever brought tears to my eyes… the other film was the 1966 remake version of ‘Madame X’ starring Lana Turner and John Forsythe. Other remakes of Madame X were 1929, 1937 & 1981. 1966 is the best.
Women now serving in submarines. More difference of sex quarters, increasing the public cost of building special submarines that cater for housing men and women into one sub. And what happens when a sub is sunk, and the escape logistics only allows so many to survive and the rest below must be sacrificed? This problem has been dealt with in a lot of old American movies. Do the women by right of chivalry, get first right to escape, whilst men must be sacrificed to save them?
This reminds me of the sinking of the Titanic in the North Atlantic Ocean in 1912. There were not enough lifeboats to save everyone and the women and children were put into the boats first and the men valiantly stayed behind to drown in icy cold waters as the ship sunk. One disgraceful man, dressed up as a woman to save himself, climbed into a lifeboat, denying some other woman a position. In those days, Chivalry was valued and important and this man was flagged as a coward disgrace of the highest shame. Do men in submarines now take the view that women no longer come first and that men have the right to be saved ahead of women, when there is a limited number of choices as to who should be saved? Do men now live without conscience, without shame, when they allow women to be sacrificed to save their own self. Equality says “Yes”. Honourable Chivalrous Conscience says “No”. By protecting and preserving the values of Chivalry equality of sexes does not completely exist. To be equal, Chivalry must be dumped. But do we society, want to become such an uncaring low value society that women are now sacrificed to save the lives of men? I hope not… but clearly Politicians and some effeminate Military Leaders think it’s okay to save the lives of men and sacrifice the lives of women. This sacrifice ideology will get worse, as we reject values of decency and chivalry and slide further towards encouraging and promoting the habit of war. Truly our western coward politicians are insane, void of self-respect.
Romania: Romania’s volunteer force employs women in combat positions. The country has sent close to 60 women to Iraq in close combat roles. In Afghanistan, women represent nearly 7% of those serving in combat jobs. The country reports that it had no problems with operational performance related to integrating genders across the armed forces. (x)
A.I. comments… Romania, located beside a section of the Black Sea, surrounded by the countries Ukraine, Hungary, Serbia and Bulgaria and Moldova, has the same right as all European Nations, to protect their borders from invasion. In this sense, only, women have the right to be trained in home based defence against invasion of their homeland. But under no circumstances whatsoever, women should not now, not ever, be sent overseas into other combat conflicts.
America and allies did the right thing fighting in Korea, they stopped evil North Korea conquering the South. But, they failed to finish the job. Politicians lost their nerve, and because they did not destroy the North Korea Despots, since the 1950’s millions of North Koreans have starved to death and been cruelly killed by North Korean coward leaders and they now possess nuclear weapons representing a serious threat to Japan and the entire region, which if launched could cost the lives of millions of people down the track. When politicians start a job, they should have the courage to finish it, but far too many politicians are cowards and for that reason should be expelled from office by the people. One good thing women were not used in combat in the Korean War, common sense and sense of chivalrous decency once existed in the minds of men.
From Vietnam and thereafter America and allies have failed again and again in every war they entered. Why? Because the modern era of politicians had a central problem running down their backs a ‘yellow streak’ more concerned about greed and power than about doing the courageous right thing.
If politicians were educated, instead of being intellectually lazy, they would have first learned the dark truth about Islamic Doctrine, which Winston Churchill understood, but most Western Politicians have refused to learn. Invading Iraq and Afghanistan were idiot actions, because the enemy was Islam, and the only way to stop the cruelty of Islam during a war is to wipe out every Muslim to the last man. And since such an aggression is a holocaust massacre action, no one is going to condone such vicious ruthlessness, so stay out of such nations in total. Leave the Muslims alone in their insane Nations and stop them from invading the West period. Muslims outlaw all other religions in their countries, and we have the same right to outlaw Islam in the West. Islam and the West are not compatible, not now, not ever.
So, what does fool Romanian Politicians do? They jump into the fire that America started and sacrifice men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan. How stupid is that? Romania did not need to be involved in these senseless invasion wars. They were far away outside the realm of real danger; it was not their war. Politicians are too often stupid inferior thinking people; their University Degrees are not worth a thing and belong in the garbage bin. Russia invaded Afghanistan and failed to conquer the Muslims and idiot American Politicians and ally politicians didn’t learn from that reality and copied Russian stupidity that failed to study the belief system of its enemy. Islam cannot be conquered, if you are not willing to enforce total annihilation of all Muslim men. Islam and the West must be separated forever, the belief systems are not a good marriage, Muhammad author of the Qur’an, founder of Islam will never allow compatibility and assimilation not even beyond the grave. Wake up world, Islam does not fit in a Liberty Based Society.
“Denmark: Since 1988, Denmark has had a policy of “total inclusion”, which came on the heels of 1985 “combat trials” exploring the capabilities of women to fight on the front lines. “Danish research showed that women performed just as well as men in land combat roles,” according to the British MOD study. Although all posts are open to women, physical requirements have so far prevented them from joining the country’s Special Operations Forces.” (ix)
A.I. comments… Wait a minute let me get this straight. “Total inclusion”? Because “combat trials” identified that women are equally as capable as men? Someone is lying. Israel has identified that idea is not true. Did the British MOD study lie to sell further the idea that women should be included in combat? Or did the Danish Government lie to get women into combat? Or does it mean that Danish men in today’s world are gentler than Israeli men, American men and Australian men? Is so-called femininity within, promoted by false knowledge Psychology, successfully weakening the strength of character of men in Demark? So that women, exercising their masculinity within, can now equal Danish men’s strength skill level?
And then we see a contradiction to that idea that women performed just as well as men in land combat roles. If that is true why are women prevented from joining the country’s Special Operations Forces, which is a tougher breed of men? Like I said, someone is lying?
“Denmark: Women have been allowed in all ranks in the Danish military since 1998. Women perform as well as men in land combat roles, according to some Danish research, and both genders are required to meet the same physical standards in jobs that are more physically demanding. Danish women have served in combat in Afghanistan.” (x)
A.I. comments… The above report (ix) says… “physical requirements have so far prevented them from joining the country’s Special Operations Forces” and this report (x) says… “Women perform as well as men in land combat roles”. If this is true, why are not women allowed into ‘Special Operations Forces’? Someone is lying. Has the Danish research done its homework well, or is the research deliberately flawed, founded upon deceit to sell the political equality dream that women are as good as men in land combat, when other sources say that is not true?
And once again the question rises, why is Denmark involved in a senseless war in faraway Afghanistan, and worse why are they sending women into combat, when if captured, the Taliban will treat women veteran prisoners even more cruelly than male veterans? It would be preferable for a woman to be killed in combat than to become a prisoner of the Taliban. Coward politicians are behind this insanity of sending women into combat.
In Australia, since the 1980’s as women, in the name of equality, entered the warehouse industry, weightlifting standards were lowered, because women could not lift the traditional produce bag weights of thirty to fifty kilos. The weights were gradually scaled down now to 25 kilos, maximum, and often 20 kilos. Now if women are so equal in strength and stamina, as research reports claim in land combat, why are warehouses lowering physical carry weight of produce, compost soil, and scoria rock, pebbles etc.? We are turning men into wimps by lowering weight standards. We might as well close weightlifting gymnasiums, because men and women cannot handle weightlifting. No wonder obesity is on the rise, lack of exercise and eating too much food rubbish. The new generation of children, when they become adults will not have the fitness to serve in the military, yes that includes equally both men and women. Our society needs a good kick up the arse, for its new wimp standards.
“Sweden: Since 1989 there have been no gender restrictions in the Swedish military, according the UK study. Swedes say having women in combat roles, particularly those who’ve served in Afghanistan, has been positive for operations. Swedish military women work well with local Afghan women, the study noted, and have been able to lead units to discover makeshift bombs before they exploded and locate suicide bombers before they could strike. (x)
A.I. comments… I wouldn’t get too excited by these claims, of how great Swedish women are in the military. It is probably true that some Swedish women have worked well with Afghan women, but if these women they worked with, are Muslim women they still have not really achieved anything, because the belief system of Muslim women is still loyal to “Islamization of Afghanistan” and not to freedom values that thrive in the West. The USA and allies, including the European Union Nations, should not even be in Afghanistan, they have failed to stop the Taliban and never will defeat their evil thinking and behaviour, until Islam itself is wiped out and driven into extinction.
The message that Swedish women in the military are doing so great equal to men suggests that Swedish men are more timid than other combat men in other Nations. True or False? Don’t know. But Swedish male politicians are a weak breed. It is alleged in many reports since 2014 that Sweden is now the rape capital of Europe and that the majority of rapes are perpetrated by Muslim men. Population of Sweden at 31st December 2015 was 9.85 million people, expected to hit over ten million during 2016 and 4.6% of the population are Muslims, close to 460,000 and rising higher in 2017. It has been alleged in the past that Swedish Police have been beaten up and humiliated by Muslims in Sweden.
In 2014 new evil anti-freedom of speech ‘Swedish Law Criminalises Anti-Immigration Internet Speech’ in other words true to ‘Sharia Law’ and ‘Blasphemy Law’ it is a punishable crime to criticise anti-freedom apartheid Islam and the anti-assimilation ‘Hate Speech’ Qur’an.
It was reported in 2014 that 55 zones in Sweden have become No-Go Zones, controlled by Muslim Gangs that Ambulances, Fire Brigade and even Police cannot safely enter, and yet coward Swedish Politicians refuse to empower Police to go in and use total violent force to eliminate these evil Muslim gangs. Sharia Law truly rules these No-Go Zones and because inferior thinking Swedish Politicians don’t have the courage to eliminate these Muslim Gangs, it means the free territory is actually smaller, constantly shrinking in size in Sweden and that Muslims already rule large slices of Sweden (450,300 square km/ 173, 900 square miles) and the Muslim Population at best, right now in 2016 is no more than 5%. Who is tougher and more aggressive right now? Muslims or Swedes? That’s right… Muslims know no fear, whereas Swedes are afraid to fight for their freedom.
If Swedish Politicians had any sense of decency and courage, they would withdraw all combat personnel in Afghanistan and focus on saving their own country from Islamic takeover. But then it’s not a surprise that Swedish male politicians are cowards, after all they need Swedish women in combat to protect them. Male Swedish Police are afraid to go into Non-Go Zones in Sweden and yet Female Swedish Combat women enter far more dangerous regions in Afghanistan. Maybe the women of Sweden are the exception in the West and are tougher than Swedish men. Who knows? The results, demonstrated lack of male courage performance in Sweden, compared to the courage of Swedish women in Afghanistan, certainly suggests that the average Swedish man with some exceptions, is weak.
“France: Women make up nearly one-fifth of the French military and can serve in all posts except on submarines and in the riot-control gendarmeries. Though permitted to serve in the combat infantry, however, most chose not to. As a result, women make up only 1.7 percent of that force.” (ix)
Verified by… “France: In France, although women can serve in combat and overall women represent about 19% of all French military personnel, very few women actually serve on the front lines. UK researchers, noting French research from 2006, said 1.7% of women are combat infantry soldiers.” (x)
A.I. comments… Wow, French women are smarter than women in other countries. They don’t want to prove their equality image by getting involved in combat roles. They are quite happy to do their duty and serve in support military roles as did good women in World War II. But the French Government offering women combat roles is like all Politicians in other Western Nations encouraging women into combat roles, not very chivalrously smart. Obviously, women are not allowed to be used in ‘riot-control gendarmeries’ because the violent action of team self-defence is too tough for women, which makes one wonder if that is the case, why women are encouraged to participate in combat, which is savagely far worse than riot-control? So far, the French Government has not included women in submarines, probably because the outfitting and buying of new subs to include women is currently too expensive for current French Budget. Let us hope they stay smarter than the Canadians that now allow women to work in submarines.
“Germany: In 2001, the country opened German combat units to women, dramatically increasing the recruitment of female soldiers into the ranks. The number of women in the German Armed Forces is now three times as high as in 2001. As of 2009, roughly 800 female soldiers were serving in combat units.” (ix)
“Germany: In Germany, women began joining combat units in 2001 after the European Court of Justice ruled that preventing women from such jobs was against gender equality principles. Women can choose any military career they want, including elite groups such as marine commandos. The number of women in the German armed forces tripled between 2001 and 2014, with about 800 women in combat units, including many who served in the Afghanistan war.” (x)
A.I. comments… Well as I said earlier it is reasonable to include women into ground combat training for home base defence, but it is not acceptable, not now, not ever to send women into overseas combat wars. And European Nations are like Israel, very vulnerable to invasion over their borders. The history of Europe over the last 4,000 years proves that is true. Women can choose to become marine commandos… mmm… this sends a message that German women are tougher than Danish women because Danish women cannot join ‘Special Forces’. But is that true? Or is it German vanity claiming that their women can match men’s performance as commandos?
Perhaps we should create ‘Olympic Commando War Games’ with teams of women only, from every Nation competing against teams of men from every Nation, to find out the truth. Can women really match men in tough real commando war, or are we being sold lies, in the name of demanding equality for women? In any event, less men killed in combat, replaced by more women killed in combat, is a win-win for the male species and a lose-lose for the female species. Equality sure gives men an advantage, they never had previously, but is it the right thing to do… toss chivalry out the door?
As for the “European Court of Justice that ruled that preventing women from such jobs was against gender equality principles” (xxii) they made a ‘Totalitarian’ decision which was not founded upon an actual legislated law, posted by German Parliament. Our law courts around the Western World are too often passing laws, as precedents, accepted by weak thinking politicians that are not supportive of real existing laws. These personnel decisions by judges is too often, not enforcement of existing laws, but is in fact totalitarian decisions being made by judges, without the approval of parliament and therefore without the approval of the people. Remember, in a truly ‘Free Society’ the Politicians are the servants reporting to the people, and when that reality is rejected, then society is no longer free, as totalitarianism, the enemy of freedom takes over. We do not have to respect a court’s decision, when that decision is not enforcing existing legislation. Court Judges do not in reality, have the right to overrule ‘Parliament Legislated Law’ in a freedom valued society.
“The Netherlands: Women are not allowed in the Marine Corps or Submarine Service but can apply for other combat ready positions. But the number of women who go for combat roles is not large. Men tend to serve those roles twice as often as women. The UK study that examined women in foreign fighting forces reported that the Netherlands armed forces benefit from teams comprised of men and women when it comes to crisis-response operations and peacekeeping missions.” (x)
A.I. comments… Netherlands, a wise decision not to allow women into Marine Corps and Submarines. I hope you always stay that wise, other Nations are not that bright with wisdom. It is not clear from this statement as to whether the “teams comprised of men and women” are combat teams or simply that women are support functions of combat men. More homework is needed to explore reality. One thing that does bother me is the use of the words… “peacekeeping missions” to explain reasons for presence of allied forces in other Nations. What is “peacekeeping” about military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan for example? They failed to keep peace, because Islamic Forces true to the instructions in the Qur’an by Muhammad, verified by Hadiths, will never settle for peace until ‘Anti-Freedom Apartheid Islam’ rules those Nations.
The Politicians that send in combat units to keep peace in those regions are absolutely naïve about reality and clearly do not understand that a person’s belief system is the reason for their thinking and behaviour, and nothing will change until they reject the ‘Islamic Belief System’… and in Islamic Nations that will never happen, like a Scorpion, it’s their instinctive nature to inflict a poisonous sting upon its enemies that reject its character.
“Israel: In 1985, the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) began putting women into combat positions and by 2009 women were serving in artillery units, rescue forces, and in anti-aircraft forces. While women must take part in compulsory military service, they are conscripted for only two years, versus three for men.” (ix)
“A study on the integration of female combatants in the IDF between 2002 and 2005 found that women often exhibit “superior skills” in discipline, motivation, and shooting abilities, yet still face prejudicial treatment stemming from “a perceived threat to the historical male combat identity.” (ix)
A.I. comments… Dearie me… all of these various claimed ‘truthful’ reports are posted to sell the irresponsible idea that women should be sent into combat. Earlier reports claimed that Israel learned that women cannot perform as well as men in combat and consequently cut back female involvement in combat. Someone is lying. Sure, there are exceptions, where some women are better than men, but by average the strongest women still cannot match the strongest men in combat. And we still come back to the important issue of ‘chivalry’. Do we toss that valiant chivalry courtesy societal belief into the garbage bin so that we can justify sacrificing women in combat?
And notice it is still not an equality thing… “women must take part in compulsory military service, they are conscripted for only two years, versus three for men.”
“New Zealand: Women have been able to serve in all defense units, including infantry, armor, and artillery units, since the country passed a law to that effect in 2001. A report four years later found that the move helped drive a societal shift that “values women as well as men,” but that the integration of women into the combat trades “needed a deliberate and concerted effort.” The British Mod report concluded that there has been “variable success in attracting and recruiting women to these areas”.” (ix)
A.I. comments… The British Mod report appears to be very focused on selling the idea that women should be sent into combat. Verified in their backward thinking, because some Nations have decided it is okay to sacrifice women in overseas wars. The ‘Habit of War’ will continue to be fuelled by the flame of a mentality that does not value chivalry and believes in the name of equality that women should also be sacrificed. We have enough military headstones in war cemeteries, and plaques in war memorials, in every Western Nation, listing millions of male names, growing larger over the last one hundred years and now we are determined in the name of equality, to add women’s names to the war memorials list. We are becoming insane, locked into fixed dogma backward thinking in politics and the military. When will this idiocy cease?
“New Zealand: Women have been allowed since 2001 in every job in the armed forces, including the infantry. But that openness hasn’t translated into a high number of women in combat roles. As of May 2004, there were nine female gunners, three women rifle operators and one female field engineer, the UK study said.” (x)
A.I. comments… These 2015 (x) reported remarks reflect a different reality compared to earlier remarks in 2013 (ix). It seems that the decision to allow New Zealand women in all defence units since 2001 has not been that successful. Clearly, a large percentage of New Zealand women have more common sense than politicians and are not interested in demanding “equality” to fight in combat alongside men.
“Norway: In 1985, Norway became the first country in NATO to allow women to serve in all combat capacities, including submarines. Norwegian women are also subject to the draft in the event of a national mobilization. “The few women that are attracted by the infantry and cavalry do a great job in the Norwegian Army,” says Col. Ingrid Gjerde, an infantry officer in the Norwegian military for 25 years.” (ix)
“I have to be clear: You have to meet the physical standards, because the job is still the same. It works very well as long as women hold the standards,” added Colonel Gjerde, who was the commander of Norwegian forces in Afghanistan in 2012. “It’s not a big deal because women who go into these fields know the standards, and it’s not that hard for women to train up to the standards if they really want.” (ix)
A.I. comments… “Not that hard for women”? What does this mean? Are the standards lowered, so that “it’s not hard for women to train up to the standards”? Or are the standards tough and a lot of women just don’t make it, because they don’t have the will power to “really want”? Or is it a case of… no matter how hard they try, they cannot succeed, because their physical limitations deny them naturally the opportunity to become combat skilled, just like some men cannot cut it and do fail to meet the standards?
All these different countries decisions simply identify that women have in many cases equal abilities. But the question must stay eternally on the table… “Is the decision to approve the sending of women into combat the right thing to do?” And if the answer is yes… then humankind has decided to enjoy the ‘Habit of War’ forever and refuse to work towards the ending of the ‘Habit of War’. Which means Politicians living true to their greed and cowardice, are willing to always sacrifice men and women in war, to satisfy their own ambitions and don’t really care about Moral Law, Reality Based Ethics, or doing the right thing, simply because it is by pragmatic survival common sense the right thing to do for the preservation of common decency and chivalrous values.
Supporting sending women into combat subscribes to the false knowledge idea that the ‘Habit of War’ must always continue, until we have one war too many, and we succeed true to our suicidal mentality, leading humankind into self-imposed extinction. Won’t Gaia be pleased, when the earth rejects our right to exist, because we humans were vainly too stupid to do the right thing and learn to live collectively in peace.
If we humans were smart we would simply live in peace and collectively focus our eternal energy on the conquest of space, terra-forming new land on earth and in space and working on a continuous path of quality of life improvement for all human beings and all other altruistic life forms. But then who said humans are smart? Our history proves that we are not yet really smart at all. Clever is not being smart.
Well, I left extracts of the opening statement of the August 20, 2015 CNN report as a conclusion on ‘Should Women Fight in Ground Combat’? (x)
“Around the world, at least 16 industrialized countries … mostly U.S. allies … allow women in combat roles. Some have been doing it for more than a decade.” (x)
“Many U.S. military leaders remind us that, as a practical matter, women have been in combat since September 11, 2001 – regardless of their job title. At least 88 women in the U.S. military have died since then, many in Iraq and Afghanistan, where traditional front lines don’t exist. Military policies are changing to catch up to that reality.” (x)
“The UK does not allow women in close combat”. (x)
“The U.S. Navy said this week that Seal teams will open their ranks to women who can pass SEAL training.” (x)
A.I. comments… Well there we have it a brief historical overview about approval of women to be in combat. Many women have already died in combat and the world can now enjoy the insane ‘habit of war’ to witness over the decades to come, as more deaths of women in combat become commonplace, more memorial plaques and gravestones to commemorate the death of women alongside men, all approved by coward inferior thinking, second-rate politicians, most of whom have never fought in a street fight or taken brutal punishment in the boxing ring, and have never fought in combat. And these yellow-bellies, are making decisions in the name of “Equality” to now sacrifice women to protect their political greedy power lust arses.
Because one idiot nation decides to send women into overseas combat, other idiot nations, decide to get into the act and also sacrifice more women. The more Politicians that join this ‘Mutual Admiration Society for Pushing Women into Combat Rolls’ that is… ‘Mutual Admiration Society for Sacrificing Women’ the more, the courage of men slides into decline and chivalry is tossed into the dustbin as a rejected value of decency.
Most of today’s Western Politicians have no honour and do not deserve respect, in anyway shape or form. We need to bring back the ‘White Feather’ and the tradition that once ruled male history for the last three thousand years that cowardice is not acceptable, and that it is the physical job of men to protect women, not hide behind their skirts.
Allan Ivarsson © 2017, 2020
About the Music
“I was only 19”
A Walk in the Light Green
Performed by John Schuman & Vagabond Crew.
Composed by John Schuman.
Published by Universal Music. Australia Pty Limited.
From the Album- “Behind the Lines”.
Comments on Videos
‘Blue Light Defiance’ Books… Published on Kindle & Paperback Amazon.com