What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
234 Comments
- inactive, on 05/03/2008, -20/+128Lets just hope she isn't raped in the barracks by Halliburton employees
- TheThirdLevel, on 05/03/2008, -14/+85Props to her for fighting, although I'm sure she, like us, would prefer NO ***** WAR over a silver star.
- gregsamsa222, on 05/03/2008, -5/+69I never want to read the words, "Vice President Cheney pinned Brown" ever again.
- TGMD, on 05/03/2008, -5/+68Christ Guys, Why all the negative comments? Can't we just be positive for one ***** MOMENT!?
Look, she did a good job, we don't have to support the war to support the soldiers. She did a good job, beyond the call of duty, isn't that enough for this story? - jakethelake, on 05/03/2008, -2/+48Women are cool. :)
- ojk007, on 05/03/2008, -5/+35yeah we dont like haliburton, and we dont like rape.
- inactive, on 05/03/2008, -0/+28No. Spc Monica Brown did something good. Cheney just gave her a medal.
- Lokithx, on 05/03/2008, -3/+29You deserve a medal, doc!
- schnikies79, on 05/03/2008, -0/+20Wtf are you doing on Digg? You are supposed to be in daycare.
- Nhmarine, on 05/03/2008, -3/+23the casualties ARE the heroes
- 42Vindictive, on 05/03/2008, -1/+19Because you should never have to kill for your country.
- Upperdeck, on 05/03/2008, -3/+21I think it's pretty obvious that the ones who are making the negative comments are the ones at home playing GT4 and don't have a clue as to what the hell is going on in this world. Like someone before said you don't have to support the war to support the troops. At least she has the commitment to stand up for what she believes in as you pussies sit around and bitch about the war.... You know be part of the solution and STOP being part of the ***** problem!
- inactive, on 05/03/2008, -0/+13the heroes ARE the casualties
- phybere, on 05/03/2008, -0/+13"should be allowed to kill for their country"
As if it's a ***** privilege? - inactive, on 05/03/2008, -2/+13Probably because its Army policy not to allow women to do frontline work. Not that I agree with it..
- alexforcefive, on 05/03/2008, -1/+12the heroes SAVED the cheerleader
- inactive, on 05/03/2008, -1/+12the cheerleader DID the heroes
- consoneo, on 05/03/2008, -2/+13I worked with a female Medic who received a Combat Medical Badge (CMB) for doing exactly this kind of work. They would have let it slide if it hadn't gotten so much publicity, because we need them just as much as we need men. They can do the care job just as well as men, but they can't quite shoulder the weight that a man can. Though, when working with infantry, or other combat arms, female medics can be used because the men will carry their own wounded, saving the Medic's strength for when it's really needed, no matter the gender.
So I'm with you. It's policy, but it's not necessary. It needs to be limited, but not prohibited. - BohicaTwentyTwo, on 05/03/2008, -3/+13Wow, being proud to be an American gets you buried at Digg. That says alot.
- mal1964, on 05/03/2008, -1/+11Her Bravery! And her thinking of the lives of others over her own.
- Observer001, on 05/03/2008, -1/+11Women of the same capability can serve just as adequately as dude soldiers. SPC Brown is an exemplar of the courage and competence that being a combat medic requires, and should be treated as any other medic, gender not factoring in.
- gryphon50, on 05/03/2008, -0/+10is that all you can come up with? It's too obvious. Try harder next time.
- jgzman, on 05/03/2008, -1/+10...we are the kings subjects: if
his cause be wrong, our obedience to the king wipes
the crime of it out of us.
But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath
a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and
arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join
together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at
such a place;... Now, if these men do not die well, it
will be a black matter for the king that led them to
it; whom to disobey were against all proportion of
subjection.
-Henry V, 4:1
A soldier is bound to obey his orders that are not directly illegal. The broad strokes, the morality of the army's presence in Iraq is not the concern of the individual soldier, except when the time comes to vote. - TGMD, on 05/03/2008, -2/+11Die in a fire...
Not for being sexist, no, but for not coming up with a better sexist joke - innocentsinner, on 05/03/2008, -0/+9You and I make great team!
- gregsamsa222, on 05/03/2008, -2/+11That comment makes no sense.
- PhilLesh69, on 05/03/2008, -0/+8Yeah, we should just execute anyone who doesn't agree with our world view. That will make the world a much better place when the only people left are the stupid people who agree with each other.
- Jeffler, on 05/03/2008, -0/+8Because the thumbs down button has BALLS OF STEEL
- PhilLesh69, on 05/03/2008, -0/+8I don't know why you have such a distorted understanding of the military.
Very few people actually sign up for service in order to kill people. Sure, there are sociopaths or angry hateful people who do look at the military as a chance to kill other people. But for most people who join the military, it isn't about a particular war, or a chance to kill. They are doing it because they believe it is the best way to serve their country. Whether you agree with that way of thinking or not, you should at least understand that it is how they think, and at least respect them for doing what they think is right. Others join because they want a career in the military, and unfortunately, we are in a war that they may or may not agree with, but wanting to serve a career in the military is more important to them. Others may have very few alternative options. The military might be the difference between a homeless shelter, a gang or selling drugs and a respectable income and a future.
People serving in the miilitary are not what is keeping this war going. That is myopic thinking. We obviously cannot disband our military, so saying that people serving in the military keep a war going is just plain ignorant. We will always have a military, and we will always have politicians who are willing to use our military for ideological, rather than national security, reasons. It is unfortunate, but it has happened before and will happen again many times in the future. You can only blame political leadership for starting a war.
"Just following orders" is an acceptable defense, still. Up to a point, of course. But that is why we have laws in this country, and why the military has the Uniform Code of Military Justice. - inactive, on 05/03/2008, -7/+15+26 diggs on that says a lot about Digg.com....
- AAK15, on 05/03/2008, -0/+8Hayden Panettiere is so hot
- PhilLesh69, on 05/03/2008, -0/+8kanabiis, I agree with what you are saying, on an intellectual level. However, the reality is that our system is set up in a way that a president can send troops to war for reasons that are less than desirable, or strategically or tactically destructive. The Generals who lead the soldiers into battle are not the same ones who advise the President on the strategic level. Their decision to continue to lead their units is based more on their belief that resigning would subject their troops to a less experienced, less concerned and more obedient leader, and thus more of their beloved unit will get killed or injured.
Our military has evolved and matured to a level where combat leadership is highly professional, very combat oriented and not politically motivated. Those types, the "yes men" and those willing to bend over for a powerful washington type are separated out of combat units and are moved into more administrative leadership positions, eventually, the real ***** floats to the top, and you get Generals like Michael Hayden, the current CIA director and former NSA director. Those are the guys that would be responsible for going along with a political ideology and not standing up to their civilian leadership. However, at that point, it doesn't matter. Colin Powell stood up to them, he made his feelings known, and they quickly shut him out, and he eventually resigned because of it.
The combat leadership cannot resign in order to prevent a war. If a small band of extremist true believer politicians want to go to war, it is going to happen. Any combat leader who resigns is condemning his soldiers to going to war with a lesser qualified leader. - avaugha4, on 05/03/2008, -0/+8You are sick.
Get help, please. - mal1964, on 05/03/2008, -1/+8Happy Birthday Alix7!, Lets just hope you don't get food poisoning from your Birthday Cake.
- mal1964, on 05/03/2008, -4/+11That will never stop me from saying it.
- haylel, on 05/03/2008, -0/+7Doc Brown
A+ - KibibyteBrain, on 05/03/2008, -3/+10Pulling war heroes from combat seems to be another Vietnam tradition that lives on in this conflict...
- inactive, on 05/03/2008, -4/+11How about the fact that Americans are willing to put their lives at risk fighting for our country?
- inactive, on 05/03/2008, -1/+7I understand why they don't also. Because the people in charge of deciding this are men. (Yeah, I'm a guy, but seriously, how is this not the reason why?)
- inactive, on 05/03/2008, -2/+8Yeah, lets all be pussy hippies instead of joining the military.
- opticwind, on 05/03/2008, -0/+6Before anyone else goes on a rant about soldiers murdering innocent Iraqis and whatnot...this is in Afghanistan. Remember? The country that we ARE supposed to be in?
- floorman56, on 05/03/2008, -3/+9That happens a lot and not just Nam ..Sgt York , Memphis Belle, Iwo Jima flag raisers... its a common thing
- inactive, on 05/03/2008, -4/+10Girl power indeed.
- PhilLesh69, on 05/03/2008, -1/+6I can introduce you to women that could probably pound you into the ground.
That being said, there is some truth in that overall, in general, on average, men are stronger than women. Not by ultimate potential, because there are many women who are stronger than the average man. But the average man and the average women compared side-by-side, yes, the man will probably be a little bit stronger, especially in upper body strength.
But I would never say that all men are stronger than all women.
avaugha4, I agree with the idea that you can't claim that just by being a man you are stronger than all women, but childbirth is not a great defense. Childbirth is, I'm told, a very painful process, however there are some physiological mechanisms that allow women to go through this pain and most of the time forget the detail and severity after the fact (in order for them to still want to have another baby). Pain tolerance is not a sign of strength. No matter how much pain you can take, if you can't lift a 500 pound rock, you still can't lift a 500 pound rock.
But, I don't think strength is a reason to exclude women from combat. There are male soldiers who are weaker than some of the stronger females serving in combat. Pure strength is not the be-all and end-all of being a soldier, after all.
Though, I think that, maybe, women shouldn't serve in combat for more traditional reasons. Men fight, women make peace. Maybe I'm wrong, and I grew up on a forward deployed combat infantry division base where my father hosted the first female West Point cadets as a battalion commander, so I have always been comfortable with women serving in the military. I'm just a little uncomfortable with them being in combat, not because they couldn't handle it, but because it seems like we should not subject women to combat when they serve a different purpose in the "life and death struggle" concept. (being on the life portion of it.) - opticwind, on 05/03/2008, -1/+6Yeah, read the article next time. She was pulled from a combat mission, as is military protocol. Not because of her medal, because she's a woman. The title is not the article, buddy.
- ahuxley, on 05/03/2008, -3/+8Get some "news"
- Kennerk, on 05/03/2008, -0/+5i dont think she killed anyone, unless i missed a page on the article...?
- eir574, on 05/03/2008, -0/+5Laughsatyou,
I find erhanaltay's comments to be ridiculously ignorant, but you've perhaps stooped even lower than he has. - krnldmp, on 05/03/2008, -10/+15If she were truly brave she would have socked Cheney in the gut.
- avaugha4, on 05/03/2008, -2/+7Both of your first two 'facts' are patently false. Women typically have much more dense muscle, and are able to withstand much more pain. Ever hear of childbirth?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 234 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is