This should really annoy the misogynistic regimes in the Middle East and Persia.

How many more people would have died had she not been given the right to be a police officer because she wasn't a man?

Unanswerable question.

You are supposing that a man wouldn't have been at that position in her place. Not a reasonable assumption.

But again, being on a stateside beat is a lot diffferent than under going continuous combat operations. To attempt to equate the two is simploy ignorant.

Great point!

The question should be: how many more people would have died if this particular individual had been denied being a policewoman on account of her gender or on account of her race, or any other irrelevant factor. She did have a male partner but she was the one individual quickest on her feet and with the fastest reflexes and not afraid to risk her life --which she almost lost. Anyone slower or a worst shot would have allowed the shooter time to reload, which he was in the process of doing, and kill more people. She's obviously a unique individual who also happens to be a woman.

The argument against discrimination of any kind is that it prevents us from using the full range of human resources that might be available.

As far as sending women into combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, I don't even want to consider it because I'm opposed to both these wars. There was a window of opportunity in Afghanistan to really defeat the Talibans and capture Bin Laden, as well as rebuild the country which has actually suffered from a civil war for more than 30 years. But the opportunity was not taken, and now I fear it's too late. So I don't want any more of our soldiers dying for a lost cause.... However, I can tell you that if the US and our homes and our loved ones were in actual danger, we women and mothers would fight till the death to protect our loved ones.

It depends on how many more bullets he had.

I'm not supposing anything. There was a man with a gun there too. He wasn't as quick to respond as she was. So much for having to be a man to take charge of a situation.

I don't think that being able to take charge of the situation requires either a man or a woman. It is still a totally different environment than ground level combat.

And I don't think that ground level combat requires either a man or a woman irregardless of whether or not it is a totally different environment.

For all the reasons I previously posted.

I am not aware of any bans on police women, nor anyone talking about creating them. Even the most dangerous and intense policing is worlds away from a war zone, long deployments, living in close quarters, etc.

And the supposed push for females being allowed in combat sounds a lot like saying women have a "right" to serve in combat. It sounds like women in general being allowed combat roles. I don't buy that. First of all, the military is not an employment agency or a public service or a social service agency. It is simply about fighting wars. And a big part of the ability to fight has to due with a military culture.

We already see that the physical standards for women in the military need to be lowered from the men's to accomodate the average woman who serves. I will never forget when I was in Air Force basic training, and getting my first glimpse at a womens' flight which was three weeks ahead of us (a century ahead in terms of orientation and training). We were still very green, but we looked so much more serious and squared away compared to the women. We were boys, but they were...girls. Very soft, emotional, needing all sorts of accomodations that the men didn't dream of.

We already see that men and women are screwing on long deployments, at sea, etc., and that female soldiers and sailors are getting pregnant at a pretty high rate. We are already seeing how women need to be accomodated in all sorts of areas of military life and interfering with the mission. There has been a lot of value added to the military with the admission of women, but a lot of complications and costs as well.

I'm not saying get women out of the military, but to suggest that men and women can perform together in combat without there being some costs to it sounds like politics and wishing, not serious analysis. In most any military where women have been allowed to fight, it's been out of dire necessity for soldiers in a time of crisis. Russia in WWII, and Israel in '45 pop into my head right away.

This is not a criticism of women.

Then I am worng for all the reason that you posted.

Good point. Terriost who hates modern women, killed by a modern women. I bet they will not give him his 72 virgins for waging his juhad

Wait 'til he finds out they were actually white raisins anyway.

But he sounded to me like a garden variety American Gone Postal. When are we going to stop selling bullets to these people?