In response to:

Women Serving in Combat Positions Is a Batty Idea

AmyDB Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 5:33 PM
aknowls said (in part) Mercy sakes! You are advocting discrimination! That is naughty. And these special units. would they be excuse from duty due to "hormonal triggers"? Would the units be on a basis of cycles? And when giving birth or having a miscarriage excused from duty? ________ No aknowles they would not be excused from duty. That's the point. Hormonal, bloated, & cramping women with midol & chocolate on the other side of the field. Nothing mortal will be able to stand in their way. If there are no men how about the female troops to get pregnant? No pregnancy.... no miscarriages, no childbirth either.
AmyDB Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 5:45 PM
women want to be front line troops then let them face many of the same privations the men do but without endangering men in the process.

Anyway....I'm out for a back later.

Last Thursday Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and other U.S. military leaders lifted the ban on women serving in combat positions. I, for one, think this is a great idea and have a few modest proposals, if the brass inside the beltway is open to suggestions, on how they should deploy the dames (and whom they should deploy).

First off, if you truly want to eviscerate the enemy—namely Muslims—then I propose sending the most nerve grating and foul women Hollywood has to offer straight into hot zones as our forward armies. I’m a thinkin’ starting off with Roseanne Barr, Joy...