What's wrong with this Picture?
By debrakcarey
@debrakcarey (19887)
United States
12 responses
@Adoniah (7513)
• United States
2 Feb 13
First, our military is all volunteer, at least so far. The only women who will be sent into combat, are the ones not only qualified to do so, but in rates that normally send men into combat. You would be surprised at how many women want to go into combat.
If a woman never wants to find herself in combat, then she should enter a rate that would never put her in that position. I do not think that any woman is going to be forced to go into a combat situation...It will still be her choice, at least for now.
Now for my feelings on the matter. We are supposed to be a civilized world. There should be no reason for war in today's world. I do not want to see anyone placed in harms way, man woman or child. There are, however, groups of people who are stuck in ancient times still. Until they catch up to the rest of the world's reality, there will be war.
2 people like this
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
2 Feb 13
...and football!
I am not against women in combat IF it is their choice. Neither am I against anyone playing football...again, if it is their choice.
I was focusing on the statements of our president, and wondering how he came to the conclusions he did: football to dangerous for the son he doesn't have/war not so much so for the daughters he does have.
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
2 Feb 13
Actually, I loved your response.
I don't think you blew it, you spoke from the heart and made sense. Nothing wrong with that.
@flowerchilde (12529)
• United States
2 Feb 13
Personally I don't think sending our daughters and sisters into combat is something to be celebrated, unlike what I've heard others say! Sometimes I think women are becoming men and men are becoming women! And for those who don't want to, society wants to make them anyway.. Yep, just confirms my notion that we entered the twilight zone some time ago.
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
4 Feb 13
Every once in awhile I hear the theme song to the Twilight Zone in my head, especially when reading liberal blogs or listening to Nancy Pelosi.
@sid556 (30960)
• United States
2 Feb 13
Football like any sport or activity has the potential to be dangerous. Everyone knows that. Combat has even more potential to be dangerous. In both cases, I think it is a personal choice. I know some women that are excited and want to be right out there on the front lines fighting. I know some women that would be as good as any guy in football. I don't think that anyone should be pushed into either situation...mainly combat but likewise, if that is what they want to do and if they are qualified, I say let them.
1 person likes this
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
2 Feb 13
Choice is good.
No one was ever drafted by force, compulsion, despite the terms used in seeking out young men to play the game (recruited) or in hiring them to play the game (drafted). It is a game, played by choice, for the amusement of others. And folks get paid big bucks to play it when they're 'drafted'. And they can retire and stop playing anytime they want to, can they not?
But being drafted into combat is not free choice is it?
Granted, we have a volunteer armed services now, but can we be assured it will always be that way? And once you're in, if you CHOOSE to sign up, you're pretty much at the mercy of those commanding you, aren't you? What about all those young women who chose to sign up BEFORE this decision? Do they have a choice?
And that still leaves us with the two very different statements; young men playing football is TO DANGEROUS, but young women in combat IS NOT TO DANGEROUS. Key word here is DANGEROUS.
2 people like this
@sid556 (30960)
• United States
4 Feb 13
Actually, if we were to go to war and they started up the draft again, I don't think it would matter much...there is no choice in "draft". Of course the first ones to go would be those already signed up but then....they signed up by choice and knowing the risks.I don't like the draft at all for either men or women. If there is a draft in effect, it isn't going to matter if you are signed up or not...you will go if they want you to...no choice.
@PointlessQuestions (15397)
• United States
2 Feb 13
I thought women have the choice to serve in combat if they choose and pass the rigorous training? I feel it's only going to put the whole unit in danger to have women in the infantry. There would have to be rules for the men and separate rules for the women. They probably can't carry the same weight as men. They don't have the same body mass as men so they might dehydrate quicker. Men are always going to feel they have to look out for the women. And a man needs to take a wizz or a dump, he doesn't want a female looking at him. They won't have bathrooms out on the front lines. Men are used to smelling rank when they have no opportunity to clean up. Can you imagine a woman smelling really bad around the men? I see a lot of issues. I don't feel there's any place for a woman in combat. There might be some who can do better than men, but I hardly think its going to be the norm.
1 person likes this
@Angelpink (4034)
• Philippines
2 Feb 13
All kinds of sports involves risk ! Football is a mental and a physical game. It moves fast and hard , when the foot starts to kick , danger starts there but players are trained well so danger would be evaded or minimized .
Football to me is the best sport ! It demands for ones fast agility and quick mind .
1 person likes this
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
2 Feb 13
I don't like football, but to each their own. Are you going to watch the superbowl tomorrow?
@andrewbarclave (485)
• Ireland
2 Feb 13
Football is nothing compared to Rugby, not as much protection in it
1 person likes this
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
2 Feb 13
*raises hand*
I know about rugby.
It's like our NFL, only a lot slower, a lot less hitting, only thigh contact and moving huddles, and the NFL still focuses on soccer to find kickers.
Oh, but they don't wear helmets or shoulder pads.
Go rugby!
1 person likes this
@urbandekay (18278)
•
2 Feb 13
These people have obviously never seen rugby played! The whole thing is absurd
all the best, urban
1 person likes this
@dragon54u (31634)
• United States
2 Feb 13
I did not let my boys play football--of course, they didn't really want to but we lived in AZ and they'd have them out in full gear for hours when the temps were above 100°! I think it should be up to the parents.
As for women in combat, that's a mess. It's an unintended consequence of the radical feminist movement and I really don't think people understand what they are sending men and women into. It's bad enough our men have to witness those horrors but then we put women in with them and it gets more dangerous. Our men, no matter how we deny it, have been subtly and sometimes aggressively trained to protect women. How do you think that will turn out on the battlefield or when they hear a fellow captive being raped or tortured?
Plus, no matter how often we tell ourselves that the sexes are equal, women are not built like men and will tire more easily. If you've ever picked up one of those heavy rifles you'll have an idea what strain is put on someone physically.
I'll shut up now, but I think it's a mistake and will cost lives that do not have to be lost. I think women should be drivers, suppliers, food service personnel, office personnel, in the legal department and the dozens of other opportunities that are offered for service. They can serve their country without their presence contributing to the danger of those in combat roles.
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
2 Feb 13
I think if the liberals really truly believed choice is a good thing, they'd stop trying to convince us that the government has the right to choose for us. IN ANYTHING and EVERYTHING.
If I choose to risk my life doing anything, like smoking or overeating or drinking big gulps or signing up for combat or a roudy game of football (yeah right LOL) I should be free to make those choices. Right?
Fact is, our president and his wife and most of the other liberals out there want to make our choices for us. And their choices don't make sense, if you compare them to one another.
1 person likes this
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
2 Feb 13
I've noticed the double standard for some time now. I've seen the email, and I really enjoy Foxworthy's humor.
1 person likes this
@Hatley (163776)
• Garden Grove, California
2 Feb 13
hi I think yhou are comparing oranges to onions. If young men know ahead of times any perils of playing football and wish to still play its fine with me. But putting you women into combat is a whole different thing. If they are gping into comat knowing the perils fine, if not they should be able to opt out. just my own opinion.
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
4 Feb 13
Yes, it is all about choice. And making up our own mind about the risks.
It wasn't me Hatley, I didn't tell the public football was to dangerous for my son to play, or that my daughter might be expected to fight on the front lines of a war.
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
5 Feb 13
Football is a very dangerous and potential deadly sport. When you listen to the experts on collisions, they state that in collage and pro football the collisions that take place are the equivalent to car crashes. Just because someone decides to do something on their own, doesn't mean there is risk involved. How many people are killed every year in drunk driving accidents?
When it comes to women in combat, there are some out there that have been calling for this for years now. They want equality in their work place, and are more than happy to risk their lives for this country. The armed forces are made up of VOLUNTEERS, and they can decide if they want to do this job or not.
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
7 Feb 13
Deb, I don't think you understand that the presidents comments about football were made as a parent, and his actions when it comes to his job are his duties.
I also think it has EVERYTHING to do with choice. The women how volunteer to go into our armed forces did so of their own will. They are of legal age. If the president had a son who was not of legal age, he would be liable for the actions of his son, and as a parent in charge of his future.
You are trying to comparison is a apples to oranges, not apples, to apples.
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
7 Feb 13
Not me really, like I said, I saw this question asked on a couple of blogs, and on FB too. I got to thinking about it and thought it was a good topic.
I'm not certain Obama meant younger children ONLY. I mean, if they play at pee wee, they normally (if they are good and like to play) go on to play in High School and College, right?
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
6 Feb 13
I guess I wasn't clear.
It isn't about whether it is right to let anyone choose. I agree, they should be able to choose, in both instances.
It is about how ONE man, as a father...can be ok with sending his daughters into combat, but would think twice about allowing his son to play football.
@lampar (7584)
• United States
2 Feb 13
Of course playing football is dangerous, the same with going to combat in a battle zone in enemy's territory, and also walking on the street and swimming in a pool, or eating in a restaurant but it doesn't mean that women or young men shouldn't be allowed to make up their own decision on whether to engage in these type of activity or not, they shouldn't have to wait for the executive order before they should do them. Dangerous to the doer himself or herself is not a good reason for the government to step in and prevent them from playing base on their own free wills and choices. They should be allowed to decide no matter it is dangerous or not, their destiny belong to them, not the government. Many time, young men and women are not interested in not dangerous sport or action that is not a danger to their life, it is a fact one need to reckon with this new generation of people.
@lampar (7584)
• United States
3 Feb 13
Majority of sports contain risk of injury, it is just part of the nature of sport, yes, American football can cause concussion, brain can be damaged during forceful impact between two players or more, broken arm or shoulder is not uncommon, that is one of the reason the audiences get all the excitement and players are paid big money to play in the filed. Yes, Soldiers die in battle field, no matter they are on the ground exchanging fire with enemy or riding in an attack helicopter, or working as computer progrmmer in an off base field or sleeping in a naval warship, it is part of the risk of being a soldier one need to take. Government need to provide all the available opportunity for promotion to all gender of the military no matter they are women or men, if it take combat experience for an soldier boy or girl to get promoted within the rank, then women should also be allowed to play that role in combat, so that they can rise up in rank, so long as they can pass the test to qualify for combat, they should be allowed to serve by their own free wills.
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
2 Feb 13
I think the good news here is that no one's stepping in to take it away. At least no more so now than before.
There are people out there who ban dodgeball and any type of competitive sport, thinking it's better to raise children on the belief that everyone's equal and you can never scrape your knee if you don't run and fall.
But football isn't in trouble. 1: It's the biggest sport in America. 2: Obama said what I would hope any parent would say, knowing what we know now about the sport: I'd have to think long and hard about it.
Well, hopefully. If he flippantly allowed his children to do whatever they wanted, the criticisms would be "What a bad parent he is!"
We're learning more about brain injuries, and I think parents need to chew on a new pill these days, unlike yesteryear when it was assumed a broken bone or something immediate was the worst of it.
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
4 Feb 13
@maters, I said that his attitude about football may be the one area I agree with him. But of course it's easier to ascribe a different motive to my discussion. I didn't say I disagreed with him.
What I do find odd is he is concerned about the guys getting hurt doing something of their own free will, and yet has no philosophical problem with women of the same age going into combat. I questioned how the two thoughts could have originated in the same mind.
@burrito88 (2774)
• United States
3 Feb 13
We have an all volunteer army. Women have to enlist. Many women want to be able to do hazardous duty. Performing well in a war is how many officers get promoted. Israel has long had women in the military.
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
4 Feb 13
This is true. And I have no problem with it being voluntary. But we all know it could at a moments notice turn compulsory. UNLIKE being a football player; I sure HOPE that could NEVER become compulsory.
Here's my point, any parent would worry about either senario. I understand that. This is NOT about what I believe or think philosophically. It is about what the President thinks. How can he reconcile in his mind and to his constituents, that playing football is dangerous for males, and combat is not equally or more dangerous for women? At this point, both are voluntary; what if some day it is not voluntary? Oh well...I ought to know better than to expect people to ponder anything. It's easier to just take what we are fed by the MSM and the WH and call it good. 'shaking head'