Can we get some real studies on this rather than what amounts to "OMG!! It's Gen Mod!!!"

You folks got the liberal tactics down pat. You've been reading your Rules for Radicals, you've got a bright future in the Obama Administration. 1) confuse the issue - check. 2) drown out your opponents response and all real discussion - check 3) personal attacks - check So when you guys getting your checks from Soros and Moveon.org? Betcha Amy and Nana are Code Pink sleepers. So usmcpgw which one of those IRS guys line dancing are you? You guys probably got cushy IRS jobs for having served right, we all know how vets get preference for Fed jobs.

Mentioned this one the other day. It's been around since 2010, maybe earlier.

Perhaps you all need to step back and do a little soul searching. You've been attacking someone who you most likely agree with on most things with very little attempt at rational discussion.

Also the other military people commenting here also prove my point as to how they react to nothing but civil discourse. It brings up the knee jerk "us vs. them" reaction without even know what is being discussed. Yeah people say the military won't fire on US Citizens but the discussion here proves differently.

I'll repost it for the lazy. My original point was that when the traditional sources of soldiers begin to leave or not sign up for the military the Socialists will look elsewhere to fill the combat ranks. Non-Citizens and women being two "new" sources, why do you think they changed the rules recently? Look what's coming down the pipe with the immigration bill. They are looking for sources that will willing attack Americans. Women, as you and Nana have so aptly proved, can be easily incised to hating the enemy by merely implying crimes, negative behavior or even beliefs towards women. This is irregardless of their ability or quality of service in the military.

Why don't you man up Marine and slog through the mud and the blood and get down to the original discussion?

No she does not at the pertinent info is way down, Also she got mad and I wasn't even trying to make her mad. I've been only polite to her.

i like how you keep posting further and further from the actual posts discussing the topic. Nice tactic. You've already set people's assumptions before they read what I've written.

Nana82 way to act like a liberal, you attack personally without even attempting to refute anything I've said. Even if she's way off topic of what my original point was, which had very little to do with women's ability to be exemplary soldiers. In fact from my previous reading of her posts I'd put her (and her daughter if they are anything alike) in the group that would probably be driven out or choose not to have their children serve as a result of the changing polices of our military. I'd also like to point out that at no point have I been uncivil or impolite, that has all come from you two.

My original point was that when the traditional sources of soldiers begin to leave or not sign up for the military the Socialists will look elsewhere to fill the combat ranks. Non-Citizens and women being two "new" sources, why do you think they changed the rules recently? Look what's coming down the pipe with the immigration bill. They are looking for sources that will willing attack Americans. Women, as you and Nana have so aptly proved, can be easily incised to hating the enemy by merely implying crimes, negative behavior or even beliefs towards women. This is irregardless of their ability or quality of service in the military.