Quantcast

Should women be required to register for the draft?

Discussion in 'Legal' started by RustyHammer, Oct 9, 2003.

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

    Pendragon Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,361
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    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.
     
  2. Glockster35

    Glockster35 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    485
    Location:
    Goldsboro, NC
    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!
     
  3. CZ 75 BD

    CZ 75 BD Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    755
    Location:
    The Heart of Dixie
    Two thoughts...

    "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
     
  4. RON in PA

    RON in PA Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,159
    Location:
    S.E. PA, USA
    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.
     
  5. MicroBalrog

    MicroBalrog member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,896
    Location:
    The State of Israel - aka Gun Nut Hell
    Some are. I believe there's even an all-women MAGAV platoon, but I'm not very sure about that.
     
  6. Sergeant Bob

    Sergeant Bob Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,505
    Location:
    The Swamps of Goldwater, MI
    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.
     
  7. HeavyHaul

    HeavyHaul Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    43
    Location:
    Aurora, CO
    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
     
  8. Jeff Timm

    Jeff Timm Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2003
    Messages:
    933
    Location:
    St. Augustine, FL
    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:
     
  9. Glockster35

    Glockster35 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    485
    Location:
    Goldsboro, NC
    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:
     
  10. GinSlinger

    GinSlinger Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    130
    Location:
    Hill Country, Texas
    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.
     
  11. Moparmike

    Moparmike Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2003
    Messages:
    3,600
    Location:
    Oddly enough, a downwardly-plunging firey handbask
    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.
     
  12. Keith

    Keith Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,784
    Location:
    Kodiak, Alaska
    If women don't have the same responsibilities and duties as men, why are they eligible for the same rights and benefits?

    Keith
     
  13. RustyHammer

    RustyHammer Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,336
    Location:
    Louisiana
  14. tyme

    tyme Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Messages:
    2,550
    Location:
    Novalis
    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).
     
  15. Fred Thompson

    Fred Thompson Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2003
    Messages:
    85
    Location:
    Tampa Bay, Florida
    USAFA, I'm with ya!

    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..
     
  16. roscoe

    roscoe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    2,610
    Location:
    NV
    I'm with HeavyHaul.
     
  17. Andrew Rothman

    Andrew Rothman Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2003
    Messages:
    2,668
    Location:
    MN
    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.
     
  18. Carbonator

    Carbonator Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2003
    Messages:
    234
    Location:
    TX
    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.
     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2003
  19. Pendragon

    Pendragon Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,361
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    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.
     
  20. geekWithA.45

    geekWithA.45 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    9,242
    Location:
    SouthEast PA
    .

    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?



    Amen, Pendragon! Amen!
     
  21. longeyes

    longeyes member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    7,227
    Location:
    True West...Hotel California
    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.
     
  22. Barbara

    Barbara Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2003
    Messages:
    3,230
    Location:
    Michigan
    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.
     
  23. zahc

    zahc Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2003
    Messages:
    1,961
    Location:
    TX
    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.
     
  24. Barbara

    Barbara Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2003
    Messages:
    3,230
    Location:
    Michigan
    Bah, men hurt women all the time. They'll get used to it.

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

    Pendragon Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,361
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice