Posted on 02/09/2016 8:40:49 AM PST by Antoninus
Currently, there is no military draft in the U.S. But there is "selective service," an odd requirement that all U.S. males, at 18 years old, register for -- what, exactly? Basically, it's a way to make it very easy to reinstate the draft.
The U.S. military is currently planning to scrap all limits on placing women in combat roles (the current limits do not keep women totally out of combat). So the logical next question is: Should women be as subject to drafting as men? Should women have to register for selective service?
That was Martha Raddatz's question in Saturday evening's debate.
Marco Rubio, probably the most hawkish GOP candidate, loved the idea of conscription equality. "I do believe that Selective Service should be opened up for both men and women in case a draft is ever instituted."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
Happy to see at least one candidate with a brain opposing it.
I agree with Cruz on this.
As if you needed further proof of the RINOs’ moistened-finger-in-the-air political ethos.
Registration for the selective service is a poison pill for women in combat.
Guess those losers are happy to have girls fighting for the country, since they never did. If they volunteer, it’s another matter, but supporting the drafting of girls should disqualify any man from office.
I though that would be the case, but apparently not. Those yo-yos hopped right aboard that train without blinking an eye.
I agree with Cruz, but I think Cruz didn’t catch this point until after the debate when a Twitter battle erupted over it, and he saw a chance to say he would have answered differently. If he really was that concerned about the issue, he should have interjected like Christie did and made it clear that those three were nuts.
I hope someone asks Fiorina about this - it would be hilarious if she came out against it and against women who infantry units. The “are you nuts” coming from a woman would carry a lot more sting.
In the interest of Affirmative Action, 30,000 females should be drafted into the Infantry every year for the next 20 years.
Traditional sex roles are consistent with biological reality. People who cannot accept them are not examples of virtuous living. Those who seek to legislate against them are not forward thinking idealists, but seriously troubled neurotics.
That’s possible too.
BTW, are there signs Trump going to lose to Cruz in NH today? That would be a shocker. I have found myself reconciling the idea of Cruz as the possible GOP candidate, assuming he can beat the rest of the field.
One of the reasons I have been for Trump is 1) he could beat Bush and the others and 2) he can beat Hillary.
However, if somehow Cruz comes out ahead and crazy Bernie, not Hillary, is the Dems guy, I think Cruz might be able to take him.
We could do a lot worse than Cruz as President. He’s got a lot of the right ideas, in many ways better than Trump, but to me Trump has been the guy I thought could beat the GOPe guys AND the Leftist Dems.
Sorry, I think you misunderstand what I mean. Pursuing the registration of women for the selective service is the poison pill that will permanently reverse the new role of women in combat. It is basic reverse psychology. The outrage of women being able to join combat roles is relatively small as it is completely volunteer. The outrage at the requirement of all women having to register for selective service would be enormous.
Christie, Bush, and Rubio obviously do not have a clue about today’s military. Less than 30% of young adults can even qualify for service in any of the branches of our military. It is even less than that for women than for men. The primary reason is that our current group of Americans of the appropriate age are too fat, out of shape and sickly to be of any use to the military.
Until we figure out how to drag our young people out from behind their TVs, video games, computers, tablets, phones and other distracting past times and get them to eat right, exercise or perform a little manual labor the draft is an arcane concept. Our current military is made up of the very best of their generation. To imply that the rest of them could just be drafted and fit right in is an insult to the young professionals that currently make up the bulk of our enlisted military.
I do understand your point. My response is that I do not think it will generate the outrage you anticipate. I thought it would, and I think the Congressmen and generals who raised the issue thought it would. But if the GOP isn’t going to carry the “this is a stupid idea” banner, it won’t get reversed.
I profess that selective service is unconstitutional. If american men can not be convinced to defend the nation then the defense of the nation is not justified, and the nation should fall!
Women in combat is obscene, unnecessary and genocidal.
Just my opinion!
Once again Ted Cruz proves he is more intelligent than ANY three of the other candidates. (And, yes, you T.Rump.ites, that would include The Donald and any two of the other candidates.)
Of course it’s nuts.
The concept of “women and children first” is fundamental to civilized society.
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.