AussieReaper wrote:
lol at the first sentence of that article
A NATION that sends its women into front-line combat, into close infantry, hand-to-hand fighting and killing, is a nation that either doesn't take combat seriously or doesn't take respect for women seriously.
I'd have thought allowing women into combat is both a sign you respect the women (it becomes their choice) and you take combat seriously (the gun doesn't care if the finger that pulls the trigger was female).
But Spark, you should know better than reading The Aus.
I don't mind the Aus. Useful to see the other side every now and then. Variety is good.
Jaekus wrote:
I for one think it's high time something like this happened to Bolt. The point raised is at once pertinent and contentious, but could've been handled in a much more appropriate manner.
That's exactly it - as Kmar says, his main point is fine and it's a legitimate debate to have and the court makes that clear, but being abusing your privilege as a well-known journalist to be a complete dickhead ain't cool.
Last edited by Spark (2011-09-28 21:47:19)
