Posted on 06/19/2024 4:09:54 PM PDT by conservative98
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Senate’s version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) includes a provision that would require women to register for Selective Service, marking a significant potential change in military policy.
On page three of the NDAA, under the heading of “Strengthening the Joint Force and Defense Workforce,” the Military Selective Service Act would be amended to require the registration of women for Selective Service.
While some lawmakers oppose the measure, others argue it would benefit the government. Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) voiced his concerns during a committee meeting.
“I just think it’s wrong to say to women, ‘We’re going to involuntarily put you in the military.’ If they want to join voluntarily, that’s fantastic,” he said. “My sister proudly served in the United States Navy. There are so many women in the armed forces doing terrific work. Women have been part of the military since its founding, and that’s awesome. But that’s not what we’re talking about. They’re talking about drafting women involuntarily, and I’m totally opposed to that. I’m also worried about the expansion of the draft.”
In contrast, Congresswoman Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA) supports the amendment.
“This amendment would purely cut the government red tape that exists and allow an important government office to be more efficient and save money for more American taxpayers,” she said.
The NDAA also includes a 4.5% raise for military members and a 2% raise for Department of Defense civilian workers.
Former first son Donald Trump Jr. criticized the move, stating, “Democrats want to draft your daughters to fight the wars that no one in America outside of the military industrial complex wants to be in.”
(Excerpt) Read more at wsvn.com ...
You sound like a guy who knows he got played and fought for the wrong reasons.
Raving? Wake up and spend just an hour online witnessing what Feminist women themselves clearly state about hating men and having no compunction about sending them off to die in war. Just review the photos in Post 81. You know who they are and what they want.
As for hating women, I don't hate women at all. I just don't hide behind them like you do.
Equal rights, equal fights.
Quick, we need to set up the mortar now! Where the hell is the base plate? Oh, Jessica will be here in 20 minutes or so she had to take a break ,her back was bothering her.
Or stingingly accurate...
Explains everything.
Re: 115 - everyone who wanted / wants to serve can do so.
That’s why I find multiple deferments followed by some sort of medical disqualification so questionable.
If someone wanted / wants to serve, military medical waiver review boards can address that issue.
Avoided military service? Not at all; it just doesn't define my life, and my exes would disagree with you about point number two.
I get it. You don't want your illusions dispelled. Better to double down and pretend that the country hasn't been infiltrated by Communists for more than a century and that many of them are Feminists. You keep clapping and chanting "Real Men #BelieveAllWomen", I mean, if your wife says it's okay.
Again, celebrate who you're aligned with in Post 81.
Or should only MEN die for globohomo?
“My exes” - that’s funny!
And if your military service didn’t define you, I feel sorry for you.
Imagine the next “goldilocks” war where we need millions of fighting troops at the front.
It is “goldilocks” because it is not nuclear war—quick and over—troops not needed....and not too small a brush fire war.
That is what Congress is planning for—using men and women as pawns for their madness.
There’s no definition of “woman,” so how can this be?
Why not? Because they weaken the military, they don’t strengthen it.
We don’t fill the military with all the men we want and then add some females, we remove a man to put a female in his place.
What combat leader would not want to replace his man warriors with a shorter, lighter, weaker, sicklier, less aggressive, slower moving, more terrain limited, reduced distance traveling, hygienically vulnerable, smaller weight carrying, more prone to injury, version.
If that is true the - NO - I disagree.
It is true and I think most of the women in the military supporters are not aware of it.
I am learning to deal with the images that people have in their heads, and on this issue in their minds, they are thinking of the existing military with females being added to it, which of course would lead to “the more the merrier”, who would not want more help, more Soldiers and Sailors and Marines to help the men already there?
The reality is that females are not added to the existing Marines, or to the Marine Corp of 1970, instead the male Marines who would be there, are not there because the female replaced them, the goal is to make the military at least 50% female.
A question I sometimes ask people who think females are just fine, is “Why don’t we make the Marine Corps 100% female if we believe that females are equal in soldiering?”
You miss the point: I believe that Every American should serve his/her country in some capacity, e.g. military or civilian, for a minimum of two years.
I further believe that everyone should go through a Parris Island type of boot camp before being trained for their respective military or civilian specialty.
It is a “Skin in the Game” thing.
Correct. But the Supreme Court needs to rule on this.
Once that happens, there should be an amendment to the Constitution. Involuntary servitude is illegal except for a military draft during martial law (imagine a scenario like the Russo-Ukrainian War, we shouldn't be using a draft at all unless America is under attack).
I know she lied... she can’t help herself.
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.