Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Drafting Women?

Discussion in 'Legal' started by cls12vg30, Oct 27, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. cls12vg30

    cls12vg30 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2004
    Messages:
    355
    Location:
    Raleigh, North Carolina
    I caught this interesting quote from Oliver North in The Federalist Patriot:
    This got me to thinking. If sometime in the future a draft becomes necessary, would Congress consider including females? I know that women are now serving in many psuedo-combat roles, but I find it hard to believe they would ever be drafted. Who would push for such a move? I highly doubt NOW or any of the other feminist groups would lobby Congress and say, "We insist you draft us!" So if the women don't push for it, that leaves men. What kind of man would campaign for the conscription of women? I just don't see it happening.
     
  2. Daemon688

    Daemon688 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Messages:
    825
    Location:
    MN
    I've had this debate with others before.

    My line is "If women can't get drafted then they don't deserve to vote"

    Sometimes they agree......most times they don't :D

    We need the women to stay home and work at the factories anyways.
     
  3. El Tejon

    El Tejon Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    18,083
    Location:
    Lafayette, Indiana-the Ned Flanders neighbor to Il
    Ummm, no, that is incorrect. NOW has rountinely voiced support for the inclusion of females in registration for the draft and to change the Selective Service Act to include women as well as lobbying DACO(half)WITS to include females.

    Anything that would weaken and destroy their Great Satan (the USA) is favored by NOW. Women now are lot closer to the FEBA than you relate, especially in a conflict like Iraq.

    What kind of man would campaign for the conscription of women? Alan Alda.
     
  4. Yooper

    Yooper Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    570
    Location:
    U.P. Michigan
    You're probably right, but the only way to know for certain is to put it to the test.

    Women fought very effectively for the Russians in WWII, so I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss them as warriors.
     
  5. Sleeping Dog

    Sleeping Dog Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,255
    Location:
    MI
    Daemon, how does that argument work when there is no draft? Nobody gets to vote? Or, only gray-haired old guys who were around when the draft was active?

    Regards.
     
  6. Zrex

    Zrex Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2004
    Messages:
    572
    Even if women were drafted, they would not necessarily have to be in combat units. Think of all the support personnel involved with keeping an infantry division fighting.
     
  7. Ian

    Ian Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,857
    Historically, women have proven themselves capable of being excellent warriors. The idea does offend many delicate sensibilities, though. :rolleyes: ;)
     
  8. sumpnz

    sumpnz Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,276
    Location:
    Sedro-Woolley, WA
    I don't want to speak for Daemon but I'm pretty sure he meant 'could be drafted'. Just because you (or I) haven't been drafted, and just becuase they currently aren't drafting anyone, it doesn't mean you (or I) can't be drafted. Since there is currently no mechanism in place to conscript females regardless of any attempt to reinstate the draft women cannot be drafted while men certainly can be drafted.
     
  9. JL2152

    JL2152 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2004
    Messages:
    203
    Location:
    WA
    I think that if women want equal rights they must have equal responsibility in society. I personaly don't have to worry about being drafted I already voulenteered. All I have to worry about now is stop loss.
     
  10. WT

    WT Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,985
    I have read some comments about sending women with PMS into combat.
     
  11. Mr. Clark

    Mr. Clark Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2004
    Messages:
    224
    I have used this topic as a quick hypocrite test in the past. Anyone who says they believe in equal rights for women but who thinks woman shouldn't be registered for the draft does NOT believe in equal rights. This includes more than half of the women I've asked. They want the benefits without any of the responsibility.

    That said, I don't think anyone should have to register for the draft. If America can't raise a volunteer army to defeat those who would harm us, America deserves what it gets.
     
  12. Roon

    Roon Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    170
    Location:
    Cornelius, NC
    Why are we even having this discussion? If there is ever a draft again, or some version of national service, which I support, why shouldn't women serve?

    "This must be a dirty rotten commie trick!", Gen. Buck Turgidsen.
     
  13. Daemon688

    Daemon688 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Messages:
    825
    Location:
    MN
    They should be eligible for the draft if there is one. Like others said, if they want equal rights they should share the same duty to their country.
     
  14. Joey2

    Joey2 member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2004
    Messages:
    306
    Location:
    Hawaii
    Women being drafted is the break up of the family and the traditional role women have in holding the family structure togather.

    The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.
     
  15. jefnvk

    jefnvk Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    4,938
    Location:
    The Copper Country, Michigan
    Women get to vote, get equal rights, they can get drafted.

    That being said, there certainly needs to be some of way to discharge some. Certainly you don't believe that a 90lb, 5' girl would be eligible for combat.
     
  16. jefnvk

    jefnvk Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    4,938
    Location:
    The Copper Country, Michigan
    And joey, methinks that your idea already happened. Women are in the workforce, it is no different. Tradityional roles are for a large part already gone.
     
  17. JerryM

    JerryM Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    836
    Location:
    New Mexico
    Women cause more problems in the military than they help solve.
    There are problems of logistics, sexual problems, men being concerned about a woman, jealousy between men for a woman, facility problems, lack of strength of women, pregnancies, and having to leave children causing problems. When they have to leave their children they complain about it.

    All in all it is a mistake, and women are too valuable to be in the military. The greatest thing a woman can do is to be a homemaker and good mother for future generations. Families depend upon good and loving mothers. A soldier is greatly comforted knowing that his wife is at home with the kids, and not in another unit getting shot at.

    I really do not care what any general or congressman, or NOW says. It is a bad idea.

    Jerry
     
  18. Roon

    Roon Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    170
    Location:
    Cornelius, NC
    Think National Service, not just as military service, but lots of things that work towards the betterment of our nation.
     
  19. Ian

    Ian Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,857
    They do; basic PT standards. I know a lady who volunteered, failed to meet the basic stength quals by the end of boot camp, and was discharged (honorably).

    If I were organizing a militia unit (I won't ever be in the federal army, and so won't encouter the issue there), I would certainly accept women for combat roles (provided they met the training standards, as with male volunteers). Actual combat, I think, is more a matter of will than physical strength.
     
  20. thefitzvh

    thefitzvh Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2003
    Messages:
    989
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    I'd have to disagree with you there... certainly will is a factor, but the lady who can't hump a 90 pound ruck a few hundred miles is the lady I don't want in combat with me. When she's fatigued, her buddies have to carry her gear, and that slows the whole unit down.

    A patrol is only as fast as its slowest member.


    James
     
  21. cracked butt

    cracked butt Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    6,986
    Location:
    SE Wisconsin
    No draft for women.

    They should be home taking care of the kids.

    If they want to volunteer, all the better.
     
  22. Viking6

    Viking6 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    392
    Location:
    Virginia
    "but the lady who can't hump a 90 pound ruck a few hundred miles is the lady I don't want in combat with me. "

    There aren't many men that can hump a 90 lb ruck a few hundred miles and if they do, they ain't gonna be doing much in the way of fighting when they get there. But your point is well taken. Below, I have pasted an article in the Washington Times.

    Washington Times
    October 22, 2004
    Pg. 1
    Female Soldiers Eyed For Combat
    Army seeks end of 1994 ban
    By Rowan Scarborough, The Washington Times

    The Army is negotiating with civilian leaders about eliminating a women-in-combat ban so it can place mixed-sex support companies within warfighting units, starting with a division going to Iraq in January.
    Despite the legal prohibition, Army plans already have included such collocation of women-men units in blueprints for a lighter force of 10 active divisions, according to Defense Department sources.

    An Army spokesman yesterday, in response to questions from The Washington Times, said the Army is now in discussions with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's staff to see whether the 10-year-old ban in this one area should be lifted. The ban prohibits the Army from putting women in units that "collocate" with ground combatants.

    "When that policy was made up, there was a different threat," said Lt. Col. Chris Rodney, an Army spokesman at the Pentagon. "We imagined a more linear combat environment. Now, with the nature of asymmetrical threats, we have to relook at that policy."

    Col. Rodney cited the fighting in Iraq as typifying the new threat whereby all soldiers, support or combat, face attack by rockets, mortars, roadside bombs and ambushes.

    "Everybody faces a similar threat," he said. "There is no front-line threat right now."

    Since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, the Army has suffered 793 combat deaths, including 24 female soldiers.

    The Army is not seeking to lift the ban on women in direct combat units, such as infantry or armor.

    What is being examined is the part of the exclusion rule that says mixed-sex support companies may not be positioned with ground combat teams.

    In the disputed instance, the transformation plan of Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, calls for creating Forward Support Companies, which are made up of men and women. These companies would collocate with reconnaissance squadrons, which are combat units and are part of larger brigade "units of action."

    The problem is a 1994 ban signed by then-Defense Secretary Les Aspin that excludes women from land combat units. Mr. Aspin added an additional restriction. Women could not serve "where units and positions are doctrinally required to physically collocate and remain with direct ground combat units that are closed to women."

    Some Pentagon officials, who asked not to be named, said the proposed Forward Support Companies are at the least "skirting" the existing ban if not violating it. They suspect the new units are a way to inch women closer to land combat despite Congress' prohibition against it.

    Elaine Donnelly, who leads the pro-military Center for Military Readiness, says Congress needs to be informed of the Army's plans.

    "There is a law requiring notice to Congress that has not happened, and there are regulations that forbid the Army from taking infantry units and collocating gender-integrated units with them," said Mrs. Donnelly, who opposes women in combat. "If they are doing this, putting women in land combat units would be a violation of law and policy."

    The Pentagon long has banned women from combat roles. In the early 1990s, the new Clinton administration changed the rules by allowing women for the first time to serve on combat ships and pilot combat aircraft, such as jet fighters and helicopters.

    But the Pentagon retained the ban on women participating in direct combat and issued the new Aspin rules.

    Mr. Aspin said in a January 1994 memo to the services that "women should be excluded from assignment to units below the brigade level whose primary mission is to engage in direct combat on the ground." The policy then defined direct combat as "engaging an enemy on the ground with individual or crew-served weapons, while being exposed to hostile fire and to a high probability of direct physical contact with the hostile force's personnel. Direct combat takes place well forward on the battlefield while locating and closing with the enemy to defeat them by fire, maneuver, or shock effect."

    Mr. Aspin then went further in denying collocation of mixed-sex and combat units. The Army accepted the limitation, documents show.

    The 3rd Infantry Division, which played a major role in the fall of Baghdad in April 2003, is scheduled to return to Iraq early next year. It would be the first division to be reconfigured into "units of action" that would contain the new mixed-sex Forward Support Companies.

    In all, Gen. Schoomaker is increasing the number of combat brigades from 33 to 48, and naming them "units of action." The brigades are being married up permanently with support units so they can move out more quickly to war zones, instead of waiting for the additional personnel to arrive.

    Early in the Bush administration, Mrs. Donnelly successfully persuaded the Pentagon to restrict female soldiers from certain reconnaissance units after Army planners had penciled them into those new units.
     
  23. Barbara

    Barbara Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2003
    Messages:
    3,230
    Location:
    Michigan
    If I weren't over the legal age, I'd volunteer.
     
  24. joab

    joab Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    4,830
    Location:
    Ocoee, Fla
    No offense but with a self imposed lack of any military training what would make you qualified to form your own militia and who would follow you.
    Probably would have been a General not a full Honorable
     
  25. Tall Man

    Tall Man Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    233
    Stand fast

    That doesn't sound right.

    If an individual leaves active duty prior to the completion of military basic, they've not been in uniform long enough to characterize their service as Honorable.

    Your lady friend's departure, predicated on her failure to meet established standards, only serves to strengthen this observation.

    What probably occurred here is that this recruit was processed out under the auspices of an Entry Level Separation.

    If in fact she left boot camp with an Honorable Discharge in hand (and has paperwork available to prove such a transaction) then an gross injustice occurred. This non-vet will have access to unearned Veteran's benefits. I sincerely hope that this is not the case here.

    TM
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page