Skip to comments.Could women in combat mean fewer wars?
Posted on 02/06/2013 1:12:03 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
I believe everyone should be required to sign up for selective service. The idea of a draft is pretty much off of the table, but if it were ever to be reinstated because of a serious attack on our homeland not everyone drafted would go into combat. Combat should be reserved for those who volunteer. If there is a war the majority of Americans believe is worth fighting, there would be no shortage of men and women willing to sign up for battle. If not, we shouldnt be in it. Period.
Few people would object to women and men being called up to serve in some capacity, other than combat, in a national emergency. In fact it has often been proposed that every young American be required to participate in some form of national service for two years.
The biggest problem with required combat for any sex is that we dont always send our young men and women into harms way for good reasons. We have fought some terrible, some would say illegal, wars. Vietnam was a disaster. Even President Lyndon Johnson admitted early on that it was a bad war and unwinnable. He knew it and so did his secretary of defense and they pursued it anyway. Korea wasnt exactly World War II, the last great war worth fighting.
Iraq was invaded on faulty intelligence and turned out to be a disaster. Afghanistan has turned into a quagmire. Too many people have died because of fickle, weak, dishonest, corrupt or ambitious politicians. The idea of having to fight in a war you dont believe in is reprehensible, whether you are a man or a woman. That is why only those who volunteer, men and women, should be required to fight.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Is this a trick question?....................
What a moran*
* yes, I spelled it wrong on purpose.
Yes. Well at least for the country that puts its women in combat. Once you loose a war or two real bad, you don’t have a country to defend anymore.
Therefore, no more war for that country. One less country that can go to war could possibly mean less wars.
“The opposite of war isn’t peace. It’s slavery.” - Capt. James T. Kirk
So to the person who think America is the instigator of all the world's conflicts the answer is yes. To the rest of us, probably the opposite is true.
It seems that you summed up all of the main points rather nicely.
That short article was a pile of gibberish, ramblings, contradictions, inaccuracies, ignorance, just useless except as propaganda.
Because women are so totally peace loving and utterly immune from conflict or violence. / SARC sarcsarcsarcsarcsarc
BTW, from my recollection in Jr. High School when Vietnam was still going on. Guys in my neighborhood got Drafted. The Army doesn’t ask Draftees if they WANT to go into Combat.
Um, no. Once the Communist get a social agenda item they like to use it, show it off, get their payback.
How does someone that stupid get published in a major newspaper?
No, it's just a monumentally stupid one.
I guess that there are an increasing number of people whose long-term memories ended on 9/10/2001, then resumed on 9/12/2001, and had no idea who destroyed the WTC towers, attacked the Pentagon, or crashed an airliner in a field in Shanksville, PA sometime in the interim. Thousands of Americans died sometime between those 2 days, but we have no idea why.
Anyway, the catchphrase in today's State Department is that it 'just doesn't matter'. Nothing to see here - move along, and no more imperialist aggressions against historically oppressed peoples. /s
UM....doesn’t she OWN the newspaper? (via her deceased husband)
Naw, it just means we’ll lose.
Nuclear bombs meant fewer wars.
I wonder if they realize that is the ultimate anti-women in the military, argument.
The last thing a free nation wants is for it’s military to become independent and non-responsive to commands of it’s people and leaders and to start deciding policy on it’s own.