Comments on: Operation Petticoat: Full Steam Ahead

By: DJK

DJK — Fri, 13 May 2011 23:27:56 +0000

The addition of women is hardly recent. There has been a presence of women in the military for a time. Centuries ago there was Joan of Arc (she may have been burned at the stake afterward, but she still made it into the pre-Progressivism World History books). There were women in the Civil War actively serving, although in secret (they kept it hidden by treating their own wounds, so commanders often only found out that woman soldier was a woman postmortem). what you say is a recent addition is actually only the time at which women are able to serve without hiding their femininity. There were also women in the American Revolution serving as secret messengers

By: DJK

DJK — Fri, 13 May 2011 23:07:57 +0000

You are correct on that. Even George Washington knew the value of a navy. He even suggested that we build a navy, and when he became President Washington, his first executive order was to build the first USN.

By: DJK

DJK — Fri, 13 May 2011 22:57:53 +0000

One thing about comments that I will never understand is why people emphasize with numerous punctuation marks. An easier way, that would take up less space while, achieving the same result, is to use caps lock and/or add a parenthesized multiplication symbol along with a number right after the punctuation.

By: DJK

DJK — Fri, 13 May 2011 22:47:08 +0000

On the note of what the Bible says of women, and I don’t wish to get into a vast theological debate, I personally believe that the Bible is neither complete nor completely correct.

By: Guest

Guest — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 08:43:57 +0000

Ouch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That hurt !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By: Guest

Guest — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 08:41:51 +0000

Stop acting like a f@@@ed up Christan hypocrite. Women are not a man’s Property. The bible says women are a man’s Property. So why do you believe in that crap. I find women more stable the a f@@@ed up guy who just came back from war~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

By: Guest

Guest — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 08:31:17 +0000

GOD BLESS YOU MAM!

By: Jack

Jack — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 20:14:09 +0000

The problem with creating an all female crew is that you lose all the experience that a normal crew would have. Some of these submarine officers and senior enlisted have been on submarine deployments since the Cold War. Losing all those years of experience would mean losing mission readiness and fleet capability. Do you think the higher ups would want to risk losing a $2 billion submarine and 120 crewmen due to inexperience and its resulting incompetence?

By: Thunderhorse19

Thunderhorse19 — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:18:02 +0000

The faster the Navy puts women on the subs, the faster the Navy will get rid of the ‘over 30′ crowd, the ones who’ve been in the Navy longer than 30 years. Nothing but racist, dead wood, Admirals included. Drennan and Williams, and their cabal should have been retired 10 years ago. Then the Navy will have a free hand to work on their pedophile problem with the Navy chiefs at Kitsap.

By: FTG1(SS)

FTG1(SS) — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:46:06 +0000

I have no doubt that women could do the same jobs as men could do on a boat, But as a former submariner I have to agree with a poll a saw that this is a recipe for disaster. 3 months under water in close proximity, well I don’t have tell you what happens to both men and women after 3 months of no with the outside world. Some might say this would be good for morale, but I believe it would have the opposite affect. An all women sub would probably be okay, but then you may have competition between the all male and all female subs. I say if it works don’t mess with it.