Military Generals Want Women to Register for Draft [Fundamental Transformation Continues...]

Truth Revolt ^ | 2/3/2016 | Sarah Fisher

[falcon99]

“but maybe that doesn’t bother you” Until that crap, I thought we could have an adult conversation, but obviously you can’t. But to your point — there are a lot of combat jobs (MOS is army) that women can do as well as men. Special forces (Rangers, Seals etc) no. But pilots, tanks, and many others, yes — and some better than others. But again you miss the point, being required to register for the draft does not mean they will be drafted and even if drafted, they will be in a combat “MOS”. That said, don’t waste my time responding, after your crap above, you aren’t worth my time any more.

[Jan_Sobieski]

Falcon99, I agree that there are many MOS(s) that women can do just as good as men. However, what is the compelling reason that we as a nation would consider forcing women into the Military that do not want to go? Additionally, opening up combat arms positions, and then forcing women into the draft should give everyone pause. Once again, the Israelis have the data...

The first lesson is that men could be taught to kill strangers, but they would not stop caring for women. That is as it should be: civilized countries want to create soldiers, not savages. During the 1948 War of Liberation Israeli men would abandon their missions to come to the aid of women in distress, thereby endangering their missions, their units and themselves.

Lesson Two: The Israeli public was deeply distressed by maimed, disfigured and dead women soldiers. Israelis were horrified at the thought of their women in enemy captivity. In 1979, in testimony before the Military Personnel Subcommittee of the House Committee on Armed Services, Brigadier General Andrew J. Gatsis recalled that Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan had told him that during the War of Liberation "we had a constant fear of what the Arabs would do if they captured them [the women]," and that the men could not stand the psychological stress” of watching women being killed or captured. He recalled that Dayan felt that women in combat units "knocked down their effectiveness."

Lesson Three: Women really are the weaker sex. It takes twice as many women to lift heavy equipment. That's twice as many targets for the enemy, twice as many mouths to feed, twice as many women to transport. It takes women longer to accomplish physically challenging tasks such as digging a foxhole or a gun emplacement. Therefore, large numbers of women in combat would be a logistical nightmare.

Lesson Four: When the Muslim opposition discovered that they were fighting women, the Arabs spontaneously chose to fight to the death. The very thought of being defeated by a band of women was so shameful to them that it made them implacable. They would not surrender to women. Every encounter became bitter and protracted. For a small country surrounded by millions of hostile neighbors, these drawn-out struggles were a formula for national ruin.

[centurion316]

99% of female soldiers want nothing to do with the demands of close combat, especially when they learn that it involves having to sleep in a rice paddy with nothing but a pile of human excrement to keep you from drowning overnight. They will sign up for having a warm fire going in the cave, a good meal ready to eat, and a little company under the bear skin once the dishes are washed.

Those feminists who have advocated this policy change live inside the beltway and would never volunteer to serve in the military. If they are told to register for the draft, they will be burning bras, marching on the Pentagon, and crying for their mommies.

[falcon99]

I’ll turn the question around: What is the compelling reason that we as a nation would consider forcing men into the Military that do not want to go? Why is it any different? Is it because it has always been that way? Do women not have a responsibility to serve the nation? Why just men? Opening up combat positions to women does not mean they will necessarily be forced into those positions if required to register and are drafted — but, if they can meet the standards, there is no reason they should not serve in them — and I don’t mean modified standards. I’ll guarantee you that there some women out there that are more than capable of meeting the standards and more so than some of the wimps I’ve served with. Regarding the lessons. Re lesson one: Why is that as it should be? Your premise is that if men don’t care for women they would be savages? I agree that men would care for women until it became routine and society accepted it. Women want equality in everything, as it should be, yet they seem to still want the perks of the “weaker sex” — opening doors for them, the male paying for things, the woman getting custody in a custody fight etc. Re Lesson two: why is the society any more distressed at women being maimed and disfigured and killed than it should be with men? Re Lesson 3: While true for many (and maybe most women) again there are combat positions that do not require those physically challenging tasks. Re Lesson 4: Our recruitment should not be based on what our enemy thinks — but our tactics should. Don’t get me wrong, all the lessons make good points and I’m not necessarily one who thinks women should be in combat positions. What I am trying to get across is that if our society accepts women in combat, for whatever reason (PC, more promotion opportunities or??) then there is no reason women should not be required to register for the draft. What I am against is supposed equality that is not really equality. The only equality that seems to matter is that part of “equality” of opportunity that benefits whatever group is involved without that group also being required to take on the responsibilities that other members that also have that opportunity are required to take on.