Author Topic: Another side of Jessica's Rescue (Read 1536 times)

bigsky · « **Reply #45 on:** April 03, 2003, 04:09:14 AM »

it said on the news that her location was reported to u.s. troops by iraqis, they told them the room # where she was being held and tortured. it was rather close to the front lines. usually they have to move fast on that kind of info. i dont think her being a young woman had anything to do with it. she was just reachable.
bigsky

Smut · « **Reply #46 on:** April 03, 2003, 04:55:16 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by OIO
Gods, why do we send kids to do the fighting? No one under 25 should be in a combat zone..or near one imo.

It's been that way for many, many years. Like forever.

What do you think the average age of GI's was during WW2?

WW1?

The Civil War?

Etc...

-Smut

Smut · « **Reply #47 on:** April 03, 2003, 04:59:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Lizard3
I believe all jar heads are supposed to be combat first, all the rest is secondary.

Heard she was about 2 months out of boot camp when she got sent over and never had any "O-**** I've been captured" classes. That really bites as she probably was in no way prepared for her ordeal.

On another note, she may have survived because she's from Palestine...who knows.

Err...

She was USA, not USMC.

She had just re-enlisted for four years, so it is unlikely she was a raw recruit.

She is from Palestine, WEST VIRGINIA...not the middle east.

-Smut

Martlet · « **Reply #48 on:** April 03, 2003, 05:21:12 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Smut
Err...

She was USA, not USMC.

She had just re-enlisted for four years, so it is unlikely she was a raw recruit.

She is from Palestine, WEST VIRGINIA...not the middle east.

-Smut

She was 19, she couldn't have re enlisted for 4 more years. The closest she could have come to a re enlistment was prior national guard, if she had her parents sign for her when she was 17, and then it wouldn't be a re enlistment, but a switch to active duty.

Smut · « **Reply #49 on:** April 03, 2003, 08:45:42 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Martlet
She was 19, she couldn't have re enlisted for 4 more years. The closest she could have come to a re enlistment was prior national guard, if she had her parents sign for her when she was 17, and then it wouldn't be a re enlistment, but a switch to active duty.

Doesn't the Army still have two year enlistments? She enlisted in 2001, according to this article (good read BTW, this girl is a fighter):

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82923,00.html

I can't find a link to the article that said she had just reenlisted for four more years...I don't have the time to sift through all the articles goggle links to. I am pretty sure that is what I saw though.

-Smut

SLO · « **Reply #50 on:** April 03, 2003, 09:00:58 AM »

the latest i've read......

she wouldn't go down easy.....

she fired her weapon till it was empty.....she fought hard....thats the latest intell....errr news

2 broken legs...1 broken arm....SHOT....STABBED.

no matter what you say.....that young women is very courageous.

to the special ops groups a big WTG

~~no matter what army your in....thats the kind of special ops you want....at least ya got SOME future prospect of getting recued if your a POW.....~~

midnight Target · « **Reply #51 on:** April 03, 2003, 09:24:38 AM »

Heard the same... they say she even got a few. The girls gonna get a medal other than a Purple Heart.

WTFG Jessica.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #52 on:** April 03, 2003, 09:27:56 AM »

Yep I read that too, she is one hell of a soldier.

Nifty · « **Reply #53 on:** April 03, 2003, 09:35:40 AM »

It's all wonderful news that she's ok, and that she fought bravely. However, I can understand some of the concerns about women in combat zones. Look at how the media has latched onto this. Look at all the offers she is getting to pay for her college, and one of them is from the state government of West Virginia itself. You think any male POWs that make it back alive will get any comparable offers? I very seriously doubt it (hopefully I'm proven wrong). That shows that she's deserving of preferential treatment because she's a female. That's ok, but if that's the case, she should be in a combat zone?

SLO · « **Reply #54 on:** April 03, 2003, 09:41:52 AM »

Nifty.....

I understand what ya tryin to say....do I agree...hmm no.....russian women in WW2 proved they could fight....and fight they did.....

my only concern would be...during real life combat how would she react.

she stood up and FOUGHT.....my only concern was answered.

in my book she's a mean squeak(ina good way:D )

nuff said

AWMac · « **Reply #55 on:** April 03, 2003, 10:07:41 AM »

Quote

She was 19, she couldn't have re enlisted for 4 more years. The closest she could have come to a re enlistment was prior national guard, if she had her parents sign for her when she was 17, and then it wouldn't be a re enlistment, but a switch to active duty.

Martlet not true there Bud. I enlisted into the Regular Army, Active Duty at the age of 17. No Reserve time or National Guard time.

Retired at 37.

Nifty · « **Reply #56 on:** April 03, 2003, 10:21:26 AM »

I am not saying she can't fight, or that women in general can't fight. That's not the issue. The issue is do they get preferential treatment (from the military or from civilians) because they are females in a combat zone. If that answer is yes (and it looks like it is based off of this story) then does that compromise in any way our military? Whether it be at a global level, war level, battle level or even an individual level. That's what most people in this thread are talking about with respect to women in the military, not that they can't or wouldn't be willing to fight and die for their country.

Airhead · « **Reply #57 on:** April 03, 2003, 10:23:32 AM »

She'll be posing in Playboy in six months wearing a camo G-string and caressing an M-16. You watch.