Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

As long as our borders are not being threatened by military might, I support a volunteer force vs. the draft.

But I think in the future anyone who argues for women to be included in combat forces should have to watch last week's (2/13) "Survivor" show. This season it's about the men vs. the women.

It's not a question chivalry, chauvanism, gender bias, etc. Most men can simply hack things better with a machete (and maybe some girl will help me spell machete, ha ha ha)

1 posted on 02/17/2003 7:43:03 AM PST by Gothmog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Gothmog
bttt
3 posted on 02/17/2003 7:49:23 AM PST by Marine Inspector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Gothmog
Women should not be in the military at all.

Drafting women would definitly be a blow to our military services. Of course we would not want to go to war if we had a large number of women in the military. This is just another attempt by the anti-US types to tie the hands of the military and our government.

5 posted on 02/17/2003 7:54:12 AM PST by sd-joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Gothmog
I think there is a role for women in the military, but not in any combat or combat support role.
8 posted on 02/17/2003 8:04:32 AM PST by leadpencil1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Gothmog
BUMP!!!!!
9 posted on 02/17/2003 8:14:55 AM PST by bannie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Gothmog
Any society that sends its women to fight before it has run out of boys and old men is fundamentally flawed.
12 posted on 02/17/2003 8:38:24 AM PST by DuncanWaring (...and Freedom tastes of Reality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Gothmog
This is one of those divisive issues, like abortion, where there is no in-between and no likelihood of changing the minds of those who have decided one way or the other.

But here is my opinion anyway. Due to the successful efforts of feminists and those like-minded, we have already integrated women into our military and have expended enormous sums of taxpayer dollars to do so. Case in point, when I was in the Marine Corps in 1981-85, many of the male Marines were moved to open squadbays so that luxurious (to our point of view) enlisted barracks could be built for all the women Marines who were flooding the Corps at the time. Not only were the existing male barracks converted for use by women (the way they were weren't good enough) but brand new state-of-the-art barracks were built for them. Unlike the men, who often had to live in 80-men open squadbays, the women demanded and received brand new quarters with semi-private (or private) rooms and private bathrooms. For those who do not understand what a squadbay is, let me explain. A squadbay is a WW2-era barracks, it is a long building with a common head (latrine) in the middle and on each side, 40 men sleep and live jowl-to-jowl on bunk beds, each Marine getting a footlocker and a wall-locker to store his gear and possessions. It is okay for boot camp but once you get out in the real Corps, it's a real drag. You get your drunks coming in at 2 in the morning, bouncing off the walls and whooping it up, you deal with an endless stream of farts, coughs, and whatever else. Most of us would just strap on headphones and try to tune everything out.

Anyway, enough of the whining, but that was my experience. I should also note that women never had to do the infamous "work details" that male Marines were made to do such as mess duty, guard duty or just plain scut work like painting or mowing the grass. Instead, work details for women consisted of either doing clerical work indoors or, believe it or not, supervising the male work details. So you would have women Marines ordering male Marines around doing things that they never would have been made to do themselves.

But nevertheless, women were integrated into the armed services for better or worse. The deed is done and there is no turning back the clock now. Actually women have proved themselves to be quite useful in the military, freeing up the men for combat duty, the one military function that women are still not asked to perform (and it appears that even the most ardent feminists do not want combat duty for women).

So when we talk of a military draft for women, we are not talking about sending women into combat. Let's get that issue off the table right now. We are merely talking about drafting women into the military to assume the roles that they have already been performing, and apparently performing well, for the past two or three decades. Why shouldn't we draft women as well as men?

14 posted on 02/17/2003 8:42:20 AM PST by SamAdams76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Gothmog
Draft 18-year-old women and you'll end up when a huge baby boom.
18 posted on 02/17/2003 8:57:13 AM PST by Samwise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Gothmog
As I understand it, this lawsuit has nothing to do with the issue of whether females "belong" in the military or not. It's really a very reasonable lawsuit, in my opinion -- Since women are already permitted in the military in a variety of roles, and since Federal law is littered with all sorts of idiotic "equality" legislation such as Title IX (which requires schools receiving government support to fund male and female sports programs equally), then there is no reason why females should be treated any differently when it comes to the Selective Service registration.

If VMI and the Citadel are prohibited under Federal law from having all-male schools, then it seems obvious to me that Uncle Sam cannot have an all-male draft registration.

20 posted on 02/17/2003 9:04:26 AM PST by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Gothmog
In appropriate positions, women are Ok in the military. They have been in the armed forces for years, WACS, WAVES,ect. Apply common sense
28 posted on 02/17/2003 9:44:22 AM PST by Frankss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Gothmog
The entire "women in the military" and particularly the subset of "women in combat" is yet another stumbling block to the effective use of the military to project American power when necessary or desireable.

Dan Blather for CBSNBCABCCNNNYTWPNews: "Suzy Creamcheese dreamed of a career petting puppies at the local animal shelter but, first things first, she answered her nation's call and complied with the new all-inclusive Selective Service regulations enacted by a war-obsessed Republican Congressional majority abetted by those Democrats too cowardly to assert their party's historic pacifism developed all the way back in the 1970s.

"Now, as you can see, those puppies will go unpetted because Suzy's body was torn to shreds, decapitated, shorn of her limbs and her corpse was gang-raped by unidentified criminal elements clearly not representative of Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden or their religion of peace. It was all because the blood-crazed GOP warmongers didn't care about Suzy or the puppies. When will the Pentagon ever learn, when will they eeeeeever learn?"

C-SPAN Demonratic seminar callers to the Demonratic Whiny Hour of Washington Journal each morning (where all lefty callers of the male gender, in their capacity as stone liars, are self-proclaimed disabled combat veterans of the Vietnam War) seem to "feel" that democracy is dead unless the administration OBEYS the demands of the usual petty gang of leftist airheads in the streets to surrender before any war might begin. When Dan Blather has his aspiring assistants open Suzy's body bag for all to see, the emotional manipulations that characterized network snooze in the early 1970s will return to the one-eyed God of the living room.

Two lessons yet to be learned: No on the scene press and media coverage; NEVER waste six months yakking with the UN, just go in and attack. Do it. Don't yak about it. An obvious object of today's Americong is to postpone the festivities until hot Iraqi weather precludes chemical and biological protective suits from being worn to protect our troops. If they can't stop the war altogether, at least they will cause the maximum in gruesome casualties among American troops to bolster their political position.

They also figure that, if Suzy Creamcheese can be added to the casualty list and particularly if she looks like Meg Ryan in her prime, Suzy will be the permanent poster child for pacifism and knuckling under to one world gummint. "If only we had listened to older and wiser and morally superior countries like France, Germany and Belgium......" the line will go.

Use their next demonstration as a napalm proving ground and see to it that the loudmouthed Americong including Scott Ritter, Susan Saranwrap, Sean (Ohhh, I am soooo wasted) Penn, George (if I only had a brain) Clooney and the feminazis from Code Pink are facilitated so that they can be at Ground Zero as a Human Shield in Baghdad on Iraqi Liberation Day.

30 posted on 02/17/2003 9:49:08 AM PST by BlackElk (Put International ANSWER at Ground Zero too!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Gothmog
NO ONE should be drafted. A free country doesn't need a slave army.

VOLUNTEER US Army Vet,

jimt

56 posted on 02/17/2003 11:23:24 AM PST by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Gothmog; newgeezer
Women should be drafted

As cooks and nurses but not as soldiers.

66 posted on 02/17/2003 12:17:03 PM PST by biblewonk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Gothmog; sd-joe; bannie; leadpencil1
The is not the 1950's, feminists have shoving their type of equality (meaning that women are better than men) down mens' throats for two generations.

If you had a actual draft and women were NOT included, that could be the straw that broke the camel's back, you may end up with a rebellion on your hands.

72 posted on 02/17/2003 12:35:13 PM PST by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Gothmog
Any nation that would put it's women on the front line isn't worth defending.
79 posted on 02/17/2003 2:21:51 PM PST by LuisBasco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson