Posted on 07/05/2004 6:19:40 AM PDT by dave_behrens
To secure the continuing existence of the United States democracy against intractable religious fanaticism, whose goal is nothing less than a Muslim theocracy for all of planet Earth, it is inevitable that military conscription will again be implemented during the months following the 2004 Presidential Election. The nature of this struggle renders irrelevant the person or party who wins the election.
With very rare exceptions, every male residing in the United States 18 to 26 years of age is required by the Military Selective Service Act to register with the Selective Service System, and thereby subject himself to the possibility of involuntary military service. Yet, with the ongoing War on Islamic Terrorism, the prosecution of which has required the deployment of hundreds of thousands of U.S. military personnel, and stretched the National Guard and Reserve to its limit, absolutely no female in the U.S. is required to register. This clear fact of gender discrimination has not been focused upon in public discussions because an active draft has not been in effect since 1973.
The United States Selective Service System offers on its Website a short history of the draft with respect to women. The primary reason given for non-registration of women is a Supreme Court decision, Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981). Simply stated, it says that since all men registered with the Selective Service are considered combat replacements, and since Congress forbids women to go into combat, women should not be registered. Of course, this reasoning is absolutely absurd, since it presupposes that absolutely every male called for involuntary military service will be used exclusively for combat, and conversely that absolutely no male called will be used for the approximately 90% of military jobs which are non-combat related.
Two identical pieces of legislation before the U.S. Congress, H.R.163 and S.89, referred to as Universal National Service Act of 2003, amend the Military Selective Service Act to authorize the registration of females. Unless exempted, they obligate the performance of a two-year period of national service either in the armed forces or in a civilian capacity that “promotes the national defense,” for all United States residents, male and female, between 18 and 26 years of age. Further perusal of this proposal reveals Section 5(d), which authorizes the President “to apply different classification standards for fitness for military service and fitness for civilian service.” This Section clearly permits the President to perpetuate the current double standard and pander to the female voting majority. Because of a Congressional rule exempting females, only males will be placed involuntarily into direct ground combat. Females, although subject to national service, will be spared the dirt and danger that is inherent in facing our country’s enemies. Section 5(d) guarantees that virtually all females will return whole and well to enjoy equal civil rights and equal veteran benefits, while those of their male peers who do return will have had a vastly different experience discharging their ’male-only’ civil responsibilities.
Some questions arise as a result of these blatant facts of continuing gender discrimination:
1. Do equal civil rights for females obligate females to equal civil responsibilities? Should the absence of female civil responsibilities vis-à-vis military service commensurately diminish female civil rights? In light of the fact that only males are required by Federal law to serve involuntarily in direct ground combat for up to six years of their lives, and to risk their very existence in that service, to what quantum degree should females’ civil rights be diminished? Why is the pretext of a logically flawed Supreme Court decision, and continuing legislative gender discrimination, allowed to exempt the female majority of the population from any possibility of involuntary direct ground combat? .
2. Should female members of the Legislative and Executive branches of government be permitted to vote for war, i.e. to place only males into involuntary direct ground combat, while they and their daughters enjoy gender exemption from such civil responsibility?
3. Title IX demands that proportionately gender-equal funding be used for all school-based activities, including athletics, in schools that receive any federal funding. Many schools have had to abandon male team sports that earn revenue in excess of their costs and which aid in the preparation of males for the teamwork and organization of military service, in order to provide gender-equal funding for female sports which perennially lose revenue. Yet there is no imperative for females to utilize the skills and strengths learned on the athletic field and in the classroom for the military defense of their country. Should Title IX continue?
4. Finally, to address those arguments, based on strength and speed, against placing females involuntarily into direct ground combat. Gender-norming has been used to affirmatively place females ahead of males into civilian positions requiring physical strength and speed, such as firefighters, police, smoke jumpers, and cadets in service academies. Why not use these same gender-normed standards, which are significantly less rigorous than those minimums required of males for the same occupations, to affirmatively qualify females for involuntary direct ground combat? Females cannot be simultaneously too weak and slow to perform as equals to males on the battlefield, and still be affirmatively placed ahead of males in civilian occupations that require similar strength and speed.
Well, this is sufficient idiocy right to start off with it's not particularly necessary to read the rest.
I heard on the radio there are still over 1 million reservists in the 'ready reserve' available for duty.
Frankly ANYTHING about a draft is Leftist propaganda. The LAST thing anyone in the US military wants is draftees.
There's no place or need in the modern US military for short-service low-experience cannon fodder.
Theres a draft?
I went ahead and read the rest of the article anyway. And I agree with some of the points raised. And yes, Title IX should be canceled.
Nice to make such an assumption without any documentation whatsoever. Nice to ignore the specific proclamations of the Department of Defense, SecDef, and leading administration officials that the draft is unwanted and unwise.
Some of the Reasons why a draft is NOT desirable:
1. Many unmotivated soldiers.
2. Many undereducated soldiers
3. Retention of only 2 years does not justify training expense for today's modern military technology.
4. Deferrment programs breed discontent.
5. Prohibitive costs of benefits.
There will be. All the signs are there that the 'system' is preparing for a draft and one will be considered in Congress right after the new year if Bush or Kerry win the election. The Iraq war will spread to Iran and/or Syria and much more cannon fodder will be needed.
If you are not interested in seeing your sons or grandsons conscripted (a clear violation of the 13th amendment) then vote for the only candidate who will obey the constitution, Michael Badnarik.
Note: Forget educational deferrments. The bills already submitted to congressional committee only provide for educational deferrment for finishing High School.
dave_behrens
Since Jul 5, 2004
Got Zot?(I'm still a newbie myself but damn...)
"There's a draft?" you asked.
NO, Just some coward who is scared to death there will be one and he will have to leave his tv, vcr, drugs and other sexual activities and DO SOMETHING with his life.
NO, we don't want a draft...noone wants liberal democratic socialists who hate war to be the back ups for our children and grandchildren on the battlefield. It is better to have a few good men/women than a lot who not committed to US. God told Gideon to only take 300 instead of thousands, and they won their battles based on more quality fighters and less whiners.
Cheers...
Buddy B
To secure the continuing existence of the United States democracy against intractable religious fanaticism, whose goal is nothing less than a Muslim theocracy for all of planet Earth, it is inevitable that military conscription will again be implemented during the months following the 2004 Presidential ElectionAttempted stipulation of a point under debate. In other words, bullclinton.
It's the Dims pushing for conscription right now. Specifically, Rangel and Hollings. Their obvious goal is to de-popularize the military and de-patriotize younger voters, the way the 1960s draft did. They provide themselves cover by claiming the GOP and the military brass is planning it, but not talking about it.
In reality, the last thing the brass wants is a draft. A kid who gets drafted at nineteen is liable to hate it, resent it, and count the days until he gets out. Undrafted, he may decide on his own to enlist at twenty. He'll have a better attitude, may sign up for advanced training, and is more likely to re-up. Plus, conscription is a way to build numbers on the cheap. You don't have to worry about pay or benefits if you have it.
But facts are facts, and with our forces three untrained unmotivated nineteen year olds are no substitute for one highly trained technical sergeant in his eighth year, even if they make 1/3 as much.
-Eric
Welcome to FR.
OOPS sorry, I ment that for the author.
Trolling?
Calling upon the fiercest kittens in the land. Rain down upon one dave_behrens, for thee has been deemed a TROLL!
Dear Dave: The draft ain't gonna happen. You can, however, go enlist. May I suggest your local Marine recruiter. Ask for the infantry- code it UH on your contract. Then, in about 1 year come visit us here on FR. You'll be a changed man. Your sanctimony and self righteousness and ability to swallow liberal twaddle will disappear to be replaced with self discipline, pride and deeper understanding of this country's greatness. Do it for your country and for yourself. You'll not regret it.
Back at cha.
Dear Dave: The draft ain't gonna happen. You can, however, go enlist. May I suggest your local Marine recruiter. Ask for the infantry- code it UH on your contract. Then, in about 1 year come visit us here on FR. You'll be a changed man. Your sanctimony and self righteousness and ability to swallow liberal twaddle will disappear to be replaced with self discipline, pride and deeper understanding of this country's greatness. Do it for your country and for yourself. You'll not regret it.And he'll really, really, really oppose a draft.
-Eric
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.