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
A draft is probably about as popular of an idea as eliminating social security. I don't know of any politician that would seriously propose this.
Amen to that, E.R.
I got that link from another thread yesterday, thought it was way cool.
Number 1 this is moot
2. I read that one in seven currently serving in the WOT is female (it seems that those females in a position to volunteer have done so).
3. Who is going to take care of the families if both the husband and wife are sent away? State run orphanages for the kids of draftees?
4. As we have seen in this war there is no back line (i.e., whether you are assigned a combat position or not, you are just as likely if stationed in Iraq or Afganistan to face these situations).
I could go on, but this is pointless.
Should there ever be a draft and it becomes necessary to draft females as well then there should be a stipulation that they stay state side and handle the jobs left unmanned here.
Does no one understand that this isn't about the draft? Is it "read the first two lines, shoot off your response, and leave" week on Free Republic? This guy is using the draft to ask some very serious questions, that need answering. Nobody wants to think about this stuff. But we'd better think about it, because we're wrecking the country with it. |
Do you honostly think the draft will begin right after the election?
P.S. All hail Lenin and Marx.
Screw the draft. This isn't about the draft. Read it.
I did read it.
Maybe your parents will stay at the beach until late and you can play with Dad's computer and worry about the nonexistent draft all day.
On a scale of 1 to 100%, this has a 0% chance of happening.
Wait.....let me make that more precise:
0.000%
Sorry, you do not like women. Firefighting, police work, etc. are volunteer not even males are forced to do these occupations. But women are the ones that give birth to you males. So, until you figure out a way to procreate without us . . . it is all a fantasy.
I am the type of woman and there are many who has no problems standing up and fighting for my country, my family and my pesky rights.
Guns do a lot to equalize the sexes and there are some women that are faster and stronger than today's metrosexuals.
In some country's like Israel there are many kick butt women serving their country.
But again, what is your point exactly? That women (like in the Middle East) should be treated as second class citizens because we are not drafted? Be brave, say what you mean.
Hey Nick, why would someone who signed up today, post only this, and not respond to other posters on this thread?
Yes! Your point is well taken.
I'm also concerned about Martian Space Invaders landing next week. What will we do? How will we distribute all the laser guns?
That's another "very serious question that needs answering"
A GOOGLE search of David W. Behrens turns up some interesting stuff.
The combination of Title IX and Selective Service Registration is clearly contradictory.
If Title IX continues, (and especially if compulsory military service comes into play, as it clearly would if Ketchup Boy gets elected) then Selective Service registration would have to be adjusted appropriately.
"There's no place or need in the modern US military for short-service low-experience cannon fodder."
especially of the sort that screams the loudest that the draft is discriminatory!
Dear JeeperFreeper: Now, go back to your corner and suck on your thumb like a good boy.
Semper Fi
Hmmmm.....
If draft makes comeback, I hope its extended to public service outside just the military. I'm sure I could serve well as a Congressman if drafted, but a job at the Post Office would suffice ;)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Israel abandoned the women in combat silliness some time ago.
To tell you the truth I am not sure. It is true both sexes can be drafted. But around 2000 the debate to put women in combat kicked up again due to the increased palestinean pressure.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/femcom.html
But I have seem some of the women in training and they are kick butt.
I think the whole issue of the draft is a non issue. I am not sure why this article was thrown out there and am guessing that either some people here are trying to scare us into a draft, or do not like women. Is it fair that only men are drafted? no I do not think so. Is it in our country's best interest to have women drafted to a combat position? No, I don't think so.
A brief peek indicates to me that Israeli women are back in combat right up to their buns, thanks to the Israeli Supreme Court (apparently a looney group of 'spremes is something else we have in common with Israel).
To, make things clearer I do not think the draft is good for anyone. I think if it comes down to there being such a pressing need to protect our country, enough people will realize this need and protected her.
Hey, I'm all for drafting women into combat. Put 'em on the front lines. They want to be equal so be equal.
I agree with the registration of women - Now!
The ladies need to put their lives on the line and prove they are equal. If a mother and father are both drafted, then let one opt out, but not always the female. That wouldn't be equal.
Since women have not carried their part of the responsibility for defending this country in the past, I think they should even be given priority draft status. Let them make up for lost time -- a sort of reparations of sacrifice.
Don't want to push too hard - might make the Patti Murrays of Congress cry. :)
. . . . but I sure the heck think (in a draft) women could be drafted for the jobs they are now doing in the military. To not do so defies logic.
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.
The shallowness of the responses to this quite excellent rant leaves me wondering what happened to FR.