[RustyHammer]

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa052100a.htm


"The Selective Service System wants you to know that the requirement to register for the draft did not go away with the end of the Vietnam War. President Jimmy Carter reinstated the Selective Service registration requirement in the summer of 1980.

Under the law, virtually all male U.S. citizens, and male aliens living in the U.S., who are 18 through 25, are required to register with Selective Service.

Men who do not register could be prosecuted and, if convicted, fined up to $250,000 and/or serve up to five years in prison. In addition, a man who fails to register with Selective Service before turning age 26, even if not prosecuted, will become ineligible for:

Student Financial Aid - including Pell Grants, College Work Study, Guaranteed Student/Plus Loans, and National Direct Student Loans.
Citizenship - if the man first arrived in the U.S. before his 26th birthday.
Federal Job Training - The Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) offers programs that can train young men for jobs in auto mechanics and other skills. This program is only open to those men who register with Selective Service.
Federal Jobs - men born after December 31, 1959 must be registered to be eligible for jobs in the Executive Branch of the Federal government and the U.S. Postal Service.
As of April 1999, 27 U.S. states had enacted laws making Selective Service registration a requirement of eligibility for state-funded higher education benefits and state jobs.

In addition, Selective Service Director Gil Coronado, in an appearance on C-Span's Washington Journal of May 17, 2000 stated that his agency was working with several states to make draft registration a requirement of eligibility for a driver's license.

Mr. Coronado continued to express his concern that the U.S. may face the problem of a new "social underclass" of citizens who find themselves ineligible for many federal or state assistance programs due to their failure to register with Selective Service. ..... "

[WT]

No. We don't need any draft.

[ARperson]

Only if you believe that women should be in combat.

[Dorrin79]

something of a trick question.

There shouldn't be a draft. Period. The draft is the ultimate example of the government treating individuals as slaves.

If there is a draft, though, I see no reason to restrict it to men. If I'm going to be forced to give my life for my country, I think everybody else ought to be in the same position.

Sauce, goose, gander.

[tommytrauma]

Only if you believe that women should be in combat.

So you feel the draft should only be for combat troops and not non-combat roles?

[roscoe]

Yes

[Werewolf]

I once had a woman ask me in the mid 90's to come over to her house and mow her lawn (no that's not a euphemism for sex).

I told her quite bluntly that hey this is the 90's. You gals stepped down off your pedestals and now yur down here and equal with us men. Mow yur own lawn.

She got really huffy! Told me - hey we fought for the right to mow our own lawns, not to actually have to do it.

That conversation changed my whole attitude about a number of issues.

So to answer your question - damn skippy women ought to have to register for the draft.

[Pendragon]

The draft is immoral.

An all volunteer military is a check against the abuse of the military. Would Viet-Nam have happened with an all volunteer force? Maybe, but it would have had to have been run differently. I still think that those who are still alive who kept that war going should be brought to answer for it.

The draft is immoral because one man does not have the right to live at the expense of another. The draft is the welfare state taken to the ultimate - you give your life, so I can go on enjoying my freedom.

An all volunteer military forces us to teach each generation to love America, to value freedom and to be willing to fight for it. I honestly would like to see my son join the USMC when he is 18 - nothing would make me prouder. But if he has other interests, thats ok too - but I intend to raise him to be a man who loves America so that if his country needs him, he will (if able) answer that call. Both my father and I tried to join the service, but were rejected for medical reasons.

There is no moral justification for the draft. If we cannot raise an army to defend our shores, then our collective moral failure will presumably bring the fight to our homeland, where it will then become everyones task to take up arms. Failing that, we deserve what we get.

[jsalcedo]

What about WWII?

Would the Allies have won against Japanese and German aggression without the millions of draftees inducted into our armed services?

[jimpeel]

In a word, "Yes".

[Kaylee]

good for the gander, good for the goose.

That said... I agree with those above very displeased with the draft as an institution .. bad for liberty, bad for the service (although the service for citizenship idea appeals to me).

Also... after slogging through the dirt on my own time now and again (minus the heavy ruck and rifle) -- I've come to agree that putting chicks in infantry is Not a Good Idea. You guys are just better at Carrying Heavy Boomsticks Through The Mud.

Don't mean we can't do a dandy job in support/tech positions, nor does it mean we should get a free ride when you guys don't.

-K

[Byron]

Kaylee, I too carried a heavy ruck and a 16 as an 11B in 68. I too was drafted. Should we have been in Nam-No. Should the draft still be in effect, yes. We as a Nation have forgotten the obligation we have to our Nation. Should women be drafted in this new era-yes but not in combat.
Kaylee, Welcome Home. Byron 3/8th Inf, 4th Inf Div 68

[Mark Tyson]

No. The draft is wrong in almost all circumstances, unless the U.S. is being invaded(which'll never happen in the forseeable future) or the future of the U.s. is somehow at stake, as in WW2. We don't need a draft for our little holy war against the Taliban and UBL. Professional soldiers are more reliable. The days of massive, industrial conscript armies slugging it out are over.

[Kaylee]

Byron.. I think Ive been misunderstood. "on my own time" means I never served in any military branch in any capacity. Just general woodsbumming. And though tougher women that I might could do alright... I can't argue that on average, women can't equal men in that field.

Just want to make sure I'm not being credited with something I've not earned there. :)

[Byron]

Kaylee, I am glad you missed it. I am totally disabled due to it. I have been blessed though. Byron

[keederdag]

as an Lp guy, I'm suposed to say that there should be no draft. But I am not so sure about this; as a guy that really wanted to go (twisted huh?) it's hard for me to understand people who don't. I get kinda fascist on this issue; some times I think we should be like Israel, where everyone goe's in at 18. So If there is a draft...THEN YES, Big Yes, women should go too. #1 Equal right's means equal responcibility. Not mad here, just fair means fair. #2 I think women can be a very valuable asset in some military applications; they are much better suited for some things then men; and they Can be excellent soldiers.:)

[JeanC]

Should women register for the draft, yes. Should we have a draft, no. But since we have one and it is required, then it should be open to men and women.

Has anyone heard what has happened to the lawsuit filed by the young lady over being denied the opportunity to register for the draft, while her brother was forced to do so?

[Missouri Mule]

If for some reason the draft were to be reinstated....HELL Yeah they should.

Equal rights, baby...Equal rights!!!!!

[Al Norris]

Is everyone forgetting that the draft is constitutional? Like it or not.

Article I Section 8 Clause 15:
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

The Selective Service Act is merely a way to provide for the orderly calling up (ahem...the draft) of the militia. Go read your State Constitutions. Chances are really good that the State can do this also. Get over it already.

As for women? In this day and age, yes, they should have to register also. Either that, or get rid of all those so-called discrimination laws.

[Moparmike]

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;So, if it is calling up the militia, which according to the Militia Act of 1792 is every white* male inbetween the ages of 18 and 45, then it is a duplicate law, since the Militia Act of 1792 (http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm) already gives the President that power.

*Hey, it was the late 1700s. Its no excuse, but less deplorable then than now. It should read "Every male".

[WAGCEVP]

I say NO to the draft, period!

[biere]

I will go see what ohio has to say, but the part in the above post seems an awful like it is for dealing with internal conflicts and not going abroad to play police of the world.

Hope to see some discussion on that quote and see what happens tomorrow.

[CasualShooter]

Yes. With Equal Rights go Equal Responsibilities! :D

[thefitzvh]

I have a couple things to add:

First of all, despite what the leftists think, equal opportunity is a two way street.

You want equal pay and benefits as a man? want to vote? want to be "liberated?" Then prepare to take a bullet like the men do. You cannot call yourself an equal citizen until you sacrifice equally.

It's just like racial equality. Two way street. Affirmative action = bull????. Earn your way in, just like everyone else.

Now, that said. Some of you opposed to the draft are the same ones whining about the liberals who "don't care " about the constitution. That same constitution that guarantees RKBA also says that we can call citizens to arms. Don't like it? I'll tell you the same thing I tell the liberals who complain about me owning guns. This is america. Don't like it? Leave.

Let the flames begin.

James

[Tamara]

That same constitution that guarantees RKBA also says that we can call citizens to arms.

Perhaps you can quote the relevant passage, and also explain why the guys who wrote the document never resorted to conscription even when the country was invaded by a foreign power. (The idea of the Nation In Arms, at least in the post-Renaissance world, is a relic of revolutionary France, not America.)

[thefitzvh]

I dont have to, someone already did. Scroll up

[Moparmike]

I'll tell you the same thing I tell the liberals who complain about me owning guns. This is america. Don't like it? Leave.While I share your opinion, that particular America that we know and love wont be around much longer.

I say this with relavance to another bumper sticker slogan(like the one quoted), which said something about "changing America" that was on all the uber-liberal's bumpers. They have changed and are still changing America, and we have seemingly swapped positions with the radical left; we are now the radical right. All because we have patriotism and common sense.:mad:

Sad world we live in.

[Redlg155]

I agree with those who say that women should be included in a draft.

I also think that the there should be a level playing field in our current U.S. Military. Perhaps things have changed (I doubt it) but females in the Army did not have to meet anywhere near the male standard on the physical fitness test. If they want to serve in a voluntary army..then meet the same standards as men.


Good Shooting
Red

[Tamara]

I dont have to, someone already did. Scroll up
That's not part of the Constitution.

Which part of the "same (C)onstitution that guarantees RKBA" covers involuntary conscription, and why was involuntary conscription not used in this country until long after the Framers were all dead?

[thefitzvh]

The constitution, provides this:

Article I Section 8 Clause 15:
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

militia, was defined (by some of the framers, i might add) as every eligible male as stated in the militia act..

Therefore, involuntary service.

Where was that logic hard to follow?

in the war of 1812, people were forced to fight, and in nearly every major war since.

[Moparmike]

thefitzvh, are you referring to my post? That is the Militia Act of 1792, not the Constitution. Too bad no one uses that reference when they discuss the militia, but unfortunately for the "cause", it says "all white men" instead of "all men". But like I said, it was the late 1700's. :shrug:

[thefitzvh]

im referring to the part before about calling up the militia.

My point being is that militia wasn't defined till later, but everyone knew what it meant. If you were a citizen, you were responsible for the defense of the nation.

Im also staring at my copies of both documents now. I'm a bit of a constitution nut.


James

[BigG]

damn skippy women ought to have to register for the draft. With all the uppity crap I've had to take from em over the last couple decades, have to agree. No double standards. They should do equal work too, not just equal pay and equal job title. Damn slackers (many, not all)!

[Al Norris]

Why is it that when I made a direct quote from the Constitution of the Untited States, most of the rest of you act like it doesn't exist? :confused:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 15. Grants the legislature the power to call up the militia. That folks is what we now call the draft. The Militia Act of 1792 (as amended) defines the Militia and gives the President (as the chief executive) a limited ability to call up the Militia. A proper (according to many) delegation of legislative power.

The Selective Service Act allows for registration of all able bodied males between a certain age for the express purpose of a call up.

As far as just these two Acts go, we are still within Constitutional bounds. What is so blazin hard to understand about this? Now iffen y'all don't like this setup, then lobby for an amendment. :neener:

[Pendragon]

"Calling up the Militia" <> Conscription.

You can call up the militia all you want - show me where it says they have to answer the call. It does not say "compel, conscript, force, enslave" or any other "force" words.

We as a Nation have forgotten the obligation we have to our Nation.

Says whom? Who has forgotten?

If I recall, a lot of young people enlisted after 9/11. Did they forget?

Do we have such a shortage of people that the country is in danger of invasion? Or perhaps merely inconvenience or embarassment.

Do you not grasp the notion that it is immoral to force one man, literally at the point of a gun, to go fight and die so that another man, older, richer, more educated, can stay home and enjoy his peace and prosperity?

That is slavery - its worse than slavery because a slave is not generally placed in harms way as a matter of course.

Having an all volunteer military tells the world "we are free, we love our freedom enough to defend it - each man is here defending freedom because he loves it more than life."

Conscription is incredibly pragmatic - as are most forms of government coercion.

So, as the old saw goes, what if they held a war and nobody came?

What if, in the late 1960s, the President said - there is a grave threat to democracy. We need men to sign up and go fight in rice paddys. There will be mines, there will be torture if you are captured. We will tie your hands and make you fight in ways pleasing to politicians. Please, join now.

Even if some people went, after enough media coverage, people would get the message and the supply of volunteers would dry up.

Don't you see that the lives of free men are precious? If they can take them for the wanting, where is the incentive to place America over ambition or convenience? They can literally throw away the lives of our boys like they did in Viet Nam without any worry that it will make it harder to get volunteers in the future.

An all volunteer military is a check on our freedom, the abuse of power and our patriotism. The day we do not have enough people to defend the country is the day America has died. If an enemy masses to take us, they will not be taking America, only the corpse of a once great nation.

[MicroBalrog]

http://www.isayeret.com/overview/girls/girls-1.jpg

Why not?:D

[Al Norris]

Ahhhh Pendragon! I see you don't like the implications of unlimited power of the President! This is good.

You see, the Constitutional power of the legislature to call up the militia, The Militia Act of 1792 (as ammended) and the Selective Service Act of 1917 are fully reconcilable with voluntary service.

Where it begins to get dicey is in the amendments to the Selective Service Act, which made mincemeat of the "voluntary" provisions of the origianl Act. Add into this mix, the various War Powers given to the Executive and we steer into Constitutionally muddy waters. Which is why I didn't mention any of this until now.

It appears on the surface that many of you regard the manner and form of the Iraq War to be a perfectly legal exercise of Executive power. Yet you balk at the suggestion that involuntary servitude re the Selective Service Act of 1917, as ammended, to be akin to slavery. Since the two parts are entirely connected, that is part and parcel of the whole cloth, you simply can't have it both ways.

It was a point I and some few others were trying to make last January and February, but were severely shouted down by the majority on this board. Now as we look at another aspect of the War Powers of the Executive, you find it loathsome.

Why is that, specifically? Why is the one a lawfull exercise of presidential perogitive and the other not?

[RustyHammer]

MicroBalrog,

Love it and the I.D.F.!

/Rusty

[RWK]

Yes. Putting aside arguments re whether conscription is legitimate -- a separate topic, in my opinion -- the simple and essential fact is EQUAL MEANS EQUAL.

[Balog]

Those are some amazingly attractive young ladies. Especially the short-haired blond to the bottom right.

Oh, and if men are drafted, women should be as well. But I don't think they should see combat. And of course whether or not any draft is acceptable is a seperate question.

[BTR]

Now, even if the "calling up the militia" section in the constitution included the draft, wouldn't it be superceded by the later ammendment forbidding involuntary service/slavery? Thoughts?

[Wakal]

I'm not a big fan of the draft, but I am a fan of racial and sexual equality.

Yes to the original question, yes women should be forced to register for the draft as long as men are likewise forced to register.

Also yes to the (unasked but discussed in passing) question if women should be allowed to serve in combat. That said...ONLY if they can pass the exact same physical standards required of men for that job. I've been in the service for 14 years now, and I've been annoyed for 14 years that females are allowed to do my job despite only having to meet half to two-thirds of the same standards I do.

That is just plain wrong. One set of standards across the board is quite enough for Mamma Wakal's little boy, damn it.

Just as wrong as any other discrimination like "affirmative" action, IMO.





Alex

[DJJ]

Article I Section 8 Clause 15:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

The Selective Service Act is merely a way to provide for the orderly calling up (ahem...the draft) of the militia. Go read your State Constitutions. Chances are really good that the State can do this also. Get over it already.




In that case, Al, given the definition of "militia" as applied to the Second Amendment, that clause only gives gov't the power to call up the National Guard.

[outdoorman63]

equality means equality...

[Holly76201]

1st: Microbalog, LOVE the pic, warms the cockles of my heart.
2nd: as to the original question, Yes, I think women AND men should have to register for the draft. I've been a feminist for a little over 30 years now and I've always believed that equal rights come with equal responsibilities.
3rd: As the Mother of a daughter and a son, I don't WANT to see either of them called up, but I like to think they both would served their country if called. I also think my daughter would be fiercer {used to beat the bejabbers out of her brother on a regular basis, til he out grew her}and a better shot. She plays roller hockey and enjoys mixin it up with the guys {which is a challenge since she's 5'6" and about 150} and is Vicious with that stick.

[Al Norris]

DJJ wrote:
In that case, Al, given the definition of "militia" as applied to the Second Amendment, that clause only gives gov't the power to call up the National Guard.
BZZZZZZ! Wrong Answer! Time for a little lesson again, I see.
USC Title 10, Chapter 13
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Just so you know, it is the unorganized militia that the Selective Service Act addresses.

[USAFA]

Would I be correct in a guess that the pic posted above is from the Israli (sp?) military? Please let me know, I've been trying to decide where to shop for a new girlfriend.

As to the serious question: Fair is fair and you can't complain about the system if you aren't paying your dues. Women should register for the draft, and I can think of no good reason they shouldn't be allowed to serve in combat positions if they can meet standards. Heck, the three scariest individuals I've met in my life were all female, I wouldn't want to run into a single one of them in a dark alley.

[wingman]

Yes, we need the draft more now then ever.


Women should be drafted but in non-combat jobs.

[USAFA]

Why not in combat jobs, this one has always mystified me?

[thefitzvh]

Well, as much as I'd like women to share a COMPLETELY equal load, the simple fact is that most (I SAID MOST! don' wanna get the feminists mad at me( women can't do physically the things that a man can do. Most cannot put a rucksack with 100 lbs of gear on and move 100 miles.

James

[Pendragon]

The argument against women in combat is generally two fold:

1. Women are generally not pohysically as strong as men and are less able to carry weapons, supplies and the wounded.

2. It is much more psychologically damaging for men to see women burned, broken and blown up in combat. It may be hard for women to understand, but for a young man to have an attractive young woman in his unit, then see her step on a mine or get machine gunned - I think that would be so much worse than seeing it happen to other men.

A lot of men, and I think especially men who would lean towards the military, see themselves as protective of women in the classical, chivalrous sense. Even if they act like jerks sometimes, most guys will agree that "you dont hit girls" and stuff like that. Watching "girls" get shredded in front of you would destroy a part of you that needs to imagine that the danger is to protect all that is good back home - pretty girls, apple pie, pickups and puppy dogs, etc. I think some guys would just be undone by that experience.

Disclaimer: never in the military, the above is just speculation based on my understanding of human nature in America.

[Glockster35]

I definately think women should have to register, just like men are required to. I would have no problem having females in rear positions doing the admin types of jobs. This would also relieve many men to get on the battlefield when needed.

I don't think women should be allowed in combat positions unless they can prove themselves first. My experience shows most females can't hack it. While I don't have first hand experience in combat, I have had a few with me during realistic exercises.

We sent out three squads to Iraq, there were at least 7 women deployed, all but one were nothing more than complainers and whiners...not what I want to have backing me up in combat. The one who never compalined or whined was just caught sleeping on post a few nights ago, again, not what I want with me!

[CZ 75 BD]

"A nation that sends its women to fight its wars is not worth defending." Pat Buchanan

"If we need women in our defense forces, we must not need much defense." Joseph Sobran

[RON in PA]

Re: The ladies in the IDF. The ladies are not used for combat, but for jobs that free-up the males for combat. Also the Israelis learned early on that women warriors made Arab men fiercer fighters as their manhood was threatened so off to non-combat roles.

Yes to drafting women. Equality for all.

[MicroBalrog]

The ladies are not used for combat,

Some are. I believe there's even an all-women MAGAV platoon, but I'm not very sure about that.

[Sergeant Bob]

I am glad chivalry is not dead yet. I don't think women should be drafted, but if they were, it should only be for non-combat jobs which don't require much physical strength. That means no motor pool, civil engineering, aircraft mechanic, etc. I worked on aircraft for 20 years and we had lots of women working on the planes. Some were useless (afraid of breaking a nail) others were very good workers and tried their best to keep up. I even worked directly for a 4' 11" woman of Mexican descent who had more drive than most men I knew. But then she got injured trying to lift a 100 lb tail stand through the aft hatch of a KC-135 and got put on light duty.
This happened to almost every woman I ever met working on planes. That or, they got pregnant and put on light duty. When they were working, you had to put an extra man there to help with the heavy jobs, so then you were short a man somewhere else. When they got put on light duty, they usually stayed there for good (we had clerks who had clerks), yet they were still on our manning roster (their words, not mine) so, we never got a replacement. That's in a non-combat job, so in combat would be much more critical.
When it comes to jobs requiring physical strength, sometimes having one woman was like losing two people.

[HeavyHaul]

My views on this, yes women should be required to register.
However IMHO, every person in the US that wants to be a full citizen, with voting rights, should have to serve a minimum of 2 years in the military. Should they claim concientious objector status, they should have to serve their obligation in a public service job. Say, in an old folks home or public funded hospital. Only upon completion of that service would they then gain full citizen status. Again, only my opinion. But I believe that we would have more people that would vote, and a better govt. No proof here tho. JMHO.

Bill

[Jeff Timm]

I suspect the Draft has become obsolete in the USofA.

The mass armies of WWII required large numbers of people, example, my father was turned down for service in 1940. Said his vision was too bad.

In 1942 he was drafted and discharged in 1946.

The complex jobs in the military require longer service than 2 years, and a much smaller force equipped much more lavishly.

Geoff
Who was drafted, while in Basic Training, Tigerland, Ft. Polk, LA 1972. :cool:

[Glockster35]

I would agree that the draft today is dead, but who knows what tomarrow holds for the USA. The world is becoming more un-stable day by day.

As for today's military requiring longer service than 2 years, I would definately agree with you. But the Politicians surely don't. Most branches of the American military have just instituted a 15 month enlistment. I know, it pains me to say that the Air Force agreed to this, and my careerfield is one of the chosen few involved.

What kills me the most is that in my careerfield they have been struggling with training issues since 1997, today a troop doesn't know anything until they have been in for about 3-4 years...now here come these slackers who will serve 15 months (after basic training)...yeah, they are going to make a difference...sure!

I can't see the Air Force getting better, so I have decided to bide my time and punch 1 day over 20 years...I got under 5 years left!:neener:

[GinSlinger]

As to the last two posts.

My Military History professor (Dr Pohl) has been contacted on the question of the draft. He said that his immediate feelings were that the draft was a dead institution because of the level of training required in todays army. The watering down effect he calls it (refering as well to the armee en mass of the French Revolution). He decided though that he would study the question further and decided that his first answer was indeed correct. His reasoning is lengthy, and it was not part of a lecture, I have no notes to refer to. But, to make a long story short, after speaking with many of his colleges and with members of the DoD he believes the draft to be dead. With one exception if these United States are invaded.

GinSlinger

Oh, and as far as registering for the draft: Ladies, form one line.

[Moparmike]

Pendragon, you are right on with reguards to #2. That would warp me in ways I cant begin to (and have no desire to) contemplate.

[Keith]

If women don't have the same responsibilities and duties as men, why are they eligible for the same rights and benefits?

Keith

[RustyHammer]

btt

[tyme]

Apparently I missed this the first time. Yes, women should have to register if men do. The militia statute should be modified to include men and women. Women should have to meet the same physical requirements and should be required to be on birth control. And my other comment regarding pregnancy and active duty soldiers is likely to start a flame war and has been forbidden as a topic so...

Keith,
Which rights should they not have? If women are restricted from combat for good reasons, what are the good reasons to take away their rights? What rights do people have by virtue of being humans and citizens, and what rights do they have by virtue of being soldiers who can fight in combat?

While we're restricting rights of people who aren't (by some people's policies, not mine) allowed in combat, should we keep all obese people from voting and owning firearms? What about the disabled? Perhaps people with flat feet shouldn't have a right to trial by jury? Maybe the psychologically unstable shouldn't be able to write for a living? (I assume there is a suitable example of a famous writer/journalist who was rejected from the military for psychological or ideological reasons, but my biographical knowledge of writers is sadly lacking).

[Fred Thompson]

About the new girlfriend thing, you're right on the money!

On topic, yes, women should be eligible, but for non-combat duties..for reasons posted repeatedly already...

And, I knew some WM's in the Corps, and most of them could pack the gear too..

[roscoe]

I'm with HeavyHaul.

[Andrew Rothman]

1. Wow. Gotta meet THESE women, MicroBalrog!

2. I have never seen such sexism as demonstrated by the "but not in combat" and "most can't hack it" comments.

Women and men ought to compete on equal ground for any combat or non-combat postition. There are strong women and weak men, sharpshooter women and broad-side-of-a-barn men.

Duties should be determined by abilities, not by whether a soldier pees while sitting or standing.

There were all sorts of BS reasons why blacks in the military would be bad for morale, too.

The real reason, I believe, that women are denied combat positions is purely political. The American public would think a little more about sending its little girls off to die in a foreign land for what may be inadequately justified reasons.

[Carbonator]

I do believe in the draft. Some mentioned "forced labor and slavery" or socialistic methods. How can an able-bodied man be more socialistic than to refuse to serve and to rely on others for protection while enjoying the freedoms his American brothers are fighting for? Every able bodied American male should be a potential soldier. Refusing the draft is like your most hard core liberal socialistic welfare proponent - don't have to work even if able to, and leeching off the hard work of others - except the unearned welfare benefit for a draft dodger is freedom instead of money.

Our country cannot rely on volunteers alone. That'd be like having a volunteer tax. Works great until the money (soldiers) runs out. There will be more times in the future when we will need to enlist all available resources, possibly to save our country. WWII is very close behind us, and more unforseen events are right around the corner. Heck - in the past few years our military has been stretched to alarming levels trying to cover all the bases around the globe, and frankly the last few years have been peanuts compared to earlier conflicts. The draft got us the freedoms we have today, and it is almost certain we will need it again.

Females - draft limited to extreme need, non-combat roles only unless they can genuinely perform the same qualifications as men. Female volunteers accepted for non-combat roles only, again unless high standards are met. Sorry but my focus is on real world abilities, not political correctness and forced equality - that gets American soldiers killed. This is coming from myself, having no military experience - I have no first hand knowledge of whether or not females in battle are more of a benefit or detriment. Definitely not a black and white issue for me. Females do have a place in the military. Just how far in - there is a lot of gray area.

I don't always agree on "why" we go to war. Maybe the question should be "how do we keep our wars justified?" There's a difference between being anti-draft and disagreeing with why we are fighting.

[Pendragon]

Our country cannot rely on volunteers alone. That'd be like having a volunteer tax. Works great until the money (soldiers) runs out. There will be more times in the future when we will need to enlist all available resources, possibly to save our country.

The United States of America does not have a greater right to exist than any single individual citizen.

This very idea is the soul of the constitution.

If we run out of volunters and the country is threatened, then guess what - you will not need a draft, because we will ALL be responsible for repelling the attacks.

It is very simple - if you force an 18yr old young man to go fight and die for his country, you have enslaved him and taken his life - for the sake of letting the older, fatter, less able bodied survive. This is madness. Highly pragmatic madness - but madness the same.

Why don't we just put suspects in prison - we will sacrifice their lives so that others can be safe - afterall, if they were arrested, they probably did it.

Why don't we allow house to house searches for - terrorists, bombs, fugitives, etc. What are civil rights when the very survival of our nation is threatened?

America has a duty to raise each generation with a love for the country and freedom - so that enough people will always be willing to make the sacrifices needed to keep going.

As I said - if, for some reason, some day, there is not enough people to volunteer to defend the nation, then the nation is already lost and a draft will not help.

[geekWithA.45]

I don't believe calling forth the Militia and forcibly inducting citizens into the standing army are the same thing.

The draft is immoral, for all the reasons previously stated, and one other:

It forces the draftee to abandon Constitutional Law and all it's protections, and to accept Military Justice, which includes, among other things, the presumption of guilt.

The mustered militiaman does not forsake the Constitution he is defending.

I'll need to do some historical research, but I'm under the impression that the militia men reserved the right to come and go as they pleased, except when in actual combat....anyone got any references on this?



The United States of America does not have a greater right to exist than any single individual citizen.

This very idea is the soul of the constitution.

Amen, Pendragon! Amen!

[longeyes]

Draft, yes, for both genders (or however many there are now), but no
woman in combat roles. Combat vets, for risking their butts for the
Consumer Class, should get the best women, a free SUV every three years,
free air tickets anywhere, and drinks on the house.

[Barbara]

I'd prefer no draft for anyone, and all wars not fought to defend our borders be done on a voluntary basis. If there is to be a draft, of course it should apply to everyone.

[zahc]

It is much more psychologically damaging for men to see women burned, broken and blown up in combat. It may be hard for women to understand, but for a young man to have an attractive young woman in his unit, then see her step on a mine or get machine gunned - I think that would be so much worse than seeing it happen to other men.

I think it would seriously hurt the effectiveness of the unit because everyone would be trying not to let that happen. Distraction times 1000. Putting women with men in a combat sitiation strikes me a a really bad idea for everyone, and that does sound bad.

Heck I don't know.

[Barbara]

Bah, men hurt women all the time. They'll get used to it.

Form seperate platoons of women then. Buffalo soldiers, I guess.

[Pendragon]

Thats a pretty cynical observation Barbara.

If that is your life experience, I am sad for you.

The men in my family are taught to honor and respect women.

Yes, maybe I "hurt" my wife when I want to go shooting instead of shopping some days. But I doubt thats what you meant.

Most men do not "get used" to seing women hurt. We find it deeply disturbing and sickening.

If you do not understand the chaos, shock, confusion and demoralization that would hit a group of young men (of the caliber that volunteer for service) ages 18-28ish, then you know nothing about how men think or what affects us.

From a strategic vantage point, combat units need to be able to respond to situations quickly and efficiently. If a co-ed unit was under heavy attack and young men were watching young women being horrifically wounded, their ability to follow orders and respond to the situation would be SEVERELY compromised.

Enemies - especially in places like Iraq - would use this to our severe disadvantage.

Go read come Clauswitz or Col. Boyd. The OODA loops on these units would expand exponentially due to this visual trauma.

[Barbara]

If men rarely hurt women, why do you believe I should carry a firearm?

[longeyes]

"If men rarely hurt women, why do you believe I should carry a firearm?"

Presumably to defend yourself against criminal attack, which is not
synonymous with all of the male gender.

[Sarge]

If they're willing to have the babies, I'll gladly go fight.

[greg700]

I think women should have to register for the draft. However, we should still draft men first and reserve the conscription of women for conflicts that are so grave we have no choice (WWIII?).

As far as the draft goes, I support it fully, provided that it is used correctly.

Why should only patriots have to fight to defend our country against an invading force, while many other able bodied Americans are allowed to run and hide during the fight, but share in the priviledges and freedoms earned by the combatants. I think the draft should absolutely not be used for conflicts that are not a direct and imminent threat to the US (like the Gulf Wars).

Personally, I support mandatory service, but that's just me. I figure that if everybody's children are in the military at some point, our law makers would be far less likely to risk their lives for an unnecessary war.

I view the possibility of being drafted as the price I pay for enjoying the freedoms I enjoy....Sometimes, you have to fight so that continuing generations will know and enjoy the same freedoms.