Push for all younger women to register with Selective Service gaining steam

nbcnews.com ^ | January 29, 2013 | Bill Briggs

[machogirl]

Interesting isn’t it, that Illegals are required by LAW to comply, but nothing is done to them for not complying? Barry is offering the LAW BREAKERS immunity from our LAWS.

[EDINVA]

For so long as women (esp. young, single women) are a D-leaning voting bloc, SS registration won’t happen. Illegals have reached critical mass as a voting bloc. That gives them all the leeway they want and need.

I agree with the woman quoted in the article as saying full equality means SS registration. But that is not (for now) a political reality.

The endless drumbeat of gays and women for equality grows tiresome when so few of either group actually undertake the dangers of military life. They are merely trying to make their political point and, among other things, weaken the military.

[machogirl]

great points!

[SamuraiScot]

I don’t get how is it that males have had to register for SS for generations, with and without the draft, but they don’t “belong to the state” for merely registering, yet somehow it would be different for females?

Ready? Because boys and girls are different. Need more? Girls don't belong in combat. We send boys into combat to protect our society's future, which includes its women front-and-center, since only women can have children. Girls don't belong in close-quarters environments with strange men. At all. Nor do mothers and wives, whose vocation consists in maintaining a physical and spiritual home stateside for their children and husband (whether he is home or in uniform), rather than in tottering around in some foreign desert trying to move an ammunition case.

Any politician who suggests that our women exist to be called up to become cannon fodder or torture-toys for America's enemies is trying to destroy the family itself, and make everyone the perpetual infant-slaves of the state.

This is not a small matter. It's an existential matter for a society. Nothing else counts—especially not . . . college scholarships, was that?—if your government is kidnapping the women from families. Guerrilla war or exile is actually preferable to obedience.

[EDINVA]

You are conflating two different things: registering with the Selective Services is not the same thing as being sent into combat. Not even close. I’m at a loss to understand why my daughter wasn’t required to so register while my sons must.

Surely you know the US eliminated the draft and created an all volunteer military? Happened in the 70s. Nonetheless, mandatory Selective Service registration continues to this day, but for men only.

Since then men have not been drafted nor have most volunteered to serve a day in the military, much less in combat. It’s all optional now. But registering for men isn’t. Failure to do so carries a fine of up to $250K.

Since women have pushed successfully to serve in combat with very few actually serving, then, like all men, all women should be required to register. That doesn’t mean women will be sent into combat any more than a man registering with SS will be either drafted or sent into combat.

For generations women served on the front lines as nurses and in support roles; that was and is considered quite honorable. Most of those women returned stateside to have and raise families after having done their patriotic duty.

[SamuraiScot]

For generations women served on the front lines as nurses and in support roles. . .

All true, in fact, one daughter wants to be an army nurse. But it's the context that's changed. The world you described was when the Presidency was in the hands of men who were more or less normal Americans. The purpose of this Klingon in the White House in pushing fags and women into combat—and maybe women into the draft—is different. That's why it's a no-go.

I don't think we conservatives should get distracted about whether our sons and daughters are being treated differently. With 0bummer, it's not about military realities at all. His military meddling (through his surrogates in the Senate and at Defense) is strictly to advance his agenda—probably to dilute and compromise the conservative core of military culture so it will serve him instead of the Constitution.

[Vermont Lt]

I’m 52. I’d go before my girls go.

If they want to go fine, but drafting my girls is not going to happen.

[machogirl]

I agree with you. Take me before my boys or girls, esp. under this Despot we have occupying the office of President.

Re: Rangel, he is still operating under the bogus theory that “minorities” are over-represented in deaths in the military. His introduction of Bills to reinstate the draft are the result solely because of that lie. Next he’ll introduce a Bill to only send “Whites” to Afghanistan, Iraq, and every other cesspool around the World to be murdered. The racists have been emboldened by this Administration.

[Intolerant in NJ]

Seems only equal, fair, and just......written with maximum contempt for those who use such terms to justify government policy - I'm just thinking that those who are now so happy with the idea of women in combat might have second thoughts if they believed that what seems the logical, fair next step were on the way - since men could be drafted to serve in combat, it would only be just that women be drafted too - maybe the whole women in combat thing would lose support......