Non-Gay Political Issue// Women Registering for Selective Service

[packsaddle]

KoreaScouter, I understand and agree with your explanation. I now suggest another way to view the same facts. The AVF, as you say, works well and is likely to continue, unlikely to be replaced by conscription (there are other good reasons for this besides demographics). The AVF is working for men who join, with registration. The AVF is also working for women who join, without registration of women. There is clearly no need for registration of women with regard to the AVF - why then register men who volunteer anyway? Registration is irrelevant to the AVF and if this implies that there is no need for registration, I agree.

[hops_scout]

I think that all should have to register, but hopefully only have the ones who want to be serving doing so...

OGE, this does relate to scouting sort of...

"Do my duty to God and my country"

[OldGreyEagle]

Hops,

 

I hadn't thought of that, but yes, it does fit

[NJCubScouter]

I wasn't sure exactly where and how to jump into this. My perspective is not as one who has any experience with or direct knowledge of the military, as I know little other than what I read in the papers or hear from other people. I do, however, have daughters age 21 and almost 17 and a 12 year old son, so draft registration is a subject of interest to me.

 

I think KoreaScouter has given me the opening to jump in here, though apparently not on the side he favors. He says:

 

Considering that we have more men registered than we can ever use, why register women too, unless it's to peg the social "fairness meter"? Aren't there better ways to do that? Women have the opportunities to join and excel in the military now (with just a few combat exceptions), without having to register for the draft. I don't see what they'll gain by compelling them to register.

 

Replace the word "women" with "men" in this passage, and take out the part about the combat exceptions, and it applies equally to men, doesn't it? If the all-volunteer military is sufficient, why register anyone at all? The answer, I assume, is that if an emergency occurs and the all-volunteer military becomes insufficient, we don't want to have to first start finding people to draft. That being the case, I can think of no principled reason why women should not be registered in the selective service system when they turn 18. What can I say, I guess I just have a hangup about that "fairness" thing that KoreaScouter seems able to dismiss so easily.

 

On the other hand, I don't know that the decision that women would definitely be drafted has to be made at the same time as the expansion of the registration system. Why not put all 18-year-old men and women in the system and decide later, when a draft becomes imminent, who is actually going to be drafted? Would this make it easier to make the decision to draft women? Sure. But that's ok, too.

 

One thing I am a bit confused about. Some in this thread seem to be saying that women can currently volunteer for combat assignments, and some are saying that women are still excluded from combat. It was my understanding that women are still excluded from combat, although some of the "support" roles they are eligible for can obviously put them in harm's way. (Like Private Lynch.) But that's a different issue also. Drafting women does not necessarily mean putting them in a tank on the front lines. They could (and now do) fill support roles that leave more men available for the direct combat roles. I realize that there are fairness issues there too, but I also realize that men and women are not identical, and by the way, the courts recognize that also.

 

[Rooster7]

NJ,

 

It's rare that we agree. Still, it seems we may have some common ground concerning this issue. You said:

 

I realize that there are fairness issues there too, but I also realize that men and women are not identical, and by the way, the courts recognize that also.

 

Those words echo a man who loves his daughter. There are indeed differences. Furthermore, as men, you and I know what men are capable of, especially in times of war. It doesn't take military experience to grasp this truth. What kind of country would we be...What kind of men would we be if we allowed our daughters to become combatants in a war?

 

The question is rhetorical. The simple undeniable answer lies in every man's heart. I maintain my original position - If you're the kind of man that would allow your daughter to be forced into fighting a war, you're not someone I want to get to know. That's an argument for fools and cowards.

[NJCubScouter]

Rooster, I am not advocating that women be in "combat" positions -- at least not against their will. Right now, as I understand it, women cannot even VOLUNTEER to be in a "combat" position, and I am somewhat ambivalent about that.

 

But women can, and do, a whole host of military occupations, right now, some of which do take them close to the action. In addition to the traditional role of nurse, women drive supply trucks, they fly aircraft such as cargo and fueling aircraft (though not fighters and bombers), they serve on ships that could be attacked, they are intelligence officers and military police and probably dozens of other things. I am partly guessing at some of this, but I think I am correct. Women have been killed in "combat" and they have been captured, Private Lynch being the best-known example. I believe there were also some women on that military spy plane that was shot down by the Chinese a few years ago, and the crew held hostage.

 

So my only point is, if women can serve in support roles now as volunteers, why is it so far-fetched to say that if the national defense requires that people be drafted to fight, then women can be drafted to fulfill those support roles?

 

Rooster, I don't think your argument is with me, I think it is with the leaders of the military over the past 20 years or so, who have put women only a few feet from the front-line fighting in wars. All this thread is discussing is the mechanism that puts them there.

[Rooster7]

NJ,

 

I realize my argument is not with you. Nor am I attributing the inspiration for my remarks to your comments.

 

I am offended though by men who causally discuss the possibly of drafting women for combat roles. I have no respect for that discussion and most particularly I despise men who would put women in harms way. As to what our military has or has not been doing for the last twenty years, I believe those who are politically empowered drive them. If such a draft is ever created, it will not matter to me if liberals or conservatives are behind it. It will be a policy created for political gain and born out of political correctness. To those who would embrace it, I say shame on you.

 

I wonder how many men who truly experienced the horrors of war, and who have daughters, would condone such a draft. I realize that there are exceptions. Even when all common sense, logic, and moral righteous, floods the land, there are many who would argue that we are in a drought. One day, I believe they will have to answer for what was in their hearts.

[NJCubScouter]

Rooster, as some others have suggested or hinted at, my personal preference would be that NONE of my children be placed in a situation where they have go into combat against their will.

 

Another thing that is unfortunately worth considering here is that as much as we'd like to put it out of our minds, we are all in harm's way every day to one degree or another anyway. War is no longer something that is totally "over there somewhere" anymore. The people who thought they were just going to work in the World Trade Center on 9/11/01, or who were on a plane going wherever that someone decided should be redirected to crash into the Capitol, or who went to work one day in the Oklahoma City federal courthouse, did not know that they were on the front line of someone else's war until it was too late. In the latter case it was an internal enemy that I don't think we've even begun to deal with as a nation. The dead in those incidents included women and babies. Nobody had to send them off to war, the war came to them.

 

There's a point here somewhere, but I think I have now gotten myself too depressed to say what it is.

[Rooster7]

NJ,

 

Rooster, as some others have suggested or hinted at, my personal preference would be that NONE of my children be placed in a situation where they have go into combat against their will.

 

I didn't respond to those who "suggested or hinted" at this thought, because 1) it's a given, and 2) it's not the point of the discussion. If liberty is to be preserved, wars must be fought. The question is Are we willing to lower ourselves and send women into harms way? But if you want to make statements such as the one above, here's my version

 

I'd prefer that NONE of my children be placed in a situation where they have to go into combat whether it's against their will or NOT.

 

The people who thought they were just going to work in the World Trade Center on 9/11/01, or who were on a plane going wherever that someone decided should be redirected to crash into the Capitol, or who went to work one day in the Oklahoma City federal courthouse, did not know that they were on the front line of someone else's war until it was too late.

 

We are fighting a war against terrorism. However, terrorism is NOT war. 9/11 was NOT a battle. It was a mass murder, executed by a bunch of cowards who masqueraded on earth as men. The men, women, and children who were killed that day, were NOT combatants. They were victims. Their Killers were inspired by the promise of sexual rewards in heaven. These men, who did the killing, were NOT soldiers. They were murders. Terminology is no small matter. Its crucial to a healthy and truthful conversation. Lets not confuse matters by labeling those who planned and carried out 9/11 as warriors. They were cowards.

 

So what's my point? There's a difference between being the victim of terrorism (which we have no decision to make) and making a conscience decision to send women into combat against the same depraved animals.

 

I always knew it would come to this. Gradually, those who embrace liberal mantras have to either 1) abandon their political views because they cant reconcile it with the truth, or 2) abandon the truth. Men and Women are not equal in every aspect. They have physical, spiritual, and psychological differences in which, depending on the circumstances, it is advantageous to be one over the other. Without consideration to other debatable points (i.e., the cause is just, etc), are you willing to send your daughter into a war zone to prove a point that you dont really believe?(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[NJCubScouter]

OK, Rooster, you've convinced me: Let's abolish draft registration for men, so we don't have to worry about also registering women. Fighting wars with soldiers is outmoded anyway. If anyone gives us so much trouble that the all-volunteer force is insufficient, we can just "push the button" and be done with it. In fact, it seems to me that eliminating our capability to draft anyone would be a great deterrent, because it would mean that if we really find our backs against the wall, our enemies will be vaporized. Convincing the enemy that you're crazy is always a good way to avoid a fight.

[scoutingagain]

Jeesh!

 

I just finished a long winded reply and somehow lost it. I'm still figuring out some of the features of the site.

 

The main point I wanted to make though was,

 

Rooster, I appologize if you were offended by my question. Believe me no offense was intended. In re-reading it I realize It may have come off as more personal than intended.

 

SA

[packsaddle]

Aaaaaaah, gender differences. I continue to wonder at the Perry Mason model: men murder for money, women murder for love. Viva la diference! I guess he never accounted for terrorists. NJ (or should I say, Dr. Strangelove?) I hope all that was with your tongue firmly in your cheek.

Rooster7, why would you send ANYONE into a war zone to prove a point you didn't believe? What are you writing about!? "I always knew it would come to this." What is 'it' and what is 'this'? How did you know whatever 'it' was in the first place?

[Fat Old Guy]

"It was a mass murder, executed by a bunch of cowards who masqueraded on earth as men. The men, women, and children who were killed that day, were NOT combatants."

 

One man's war is another's act of terror. During WW II we firebombed Tokyo, Dresden and other targets, killing many civilians including women and children.

[Rooster7]

FOG,

 

First, we were responding to countries that had declared war on us.

 

Second, the intended targets were factories that were producing weapons and/or products critical to the infrastructure of our enemies.

 

Third, if we had the ability to avoid civilian casualties, we would have done so. Terrorists don't try to avoid civilians...they target them.

 

I know we normally agree, so I dont want have a knee-jerk reaction, but You probably know as well as I do, this is the kind of nonsense that liberal ideologues evoke to defend the indefensible. You wouldnt have to add much to your last post to draw an A from Berkley or HarvardIts the same garbage that some of their professors spout.

[packsaddle]

Fat Old Guy, I think the spirit of your post is exemplified by the trail of tears.