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 ...
Answer: NO. Once the females of one army see females of another wearing the same dress...look out!
Infantry in combat have heightened physical senses.
Don’t count on a female ambush of a male patrol with the amount of estrogen in the air.
B*tch STOLE MY LOOK!
If people (not the poster) are going to ask dumb questions, but ask them seriously, then let’s ask more than just one:
1. If women are allowed in combat, could this mean war over more superficial reasons than before?
2. If women are allowed in combat, could this mean more wars or more combat activity because of certain times of the month?
3. If women are allowed in combat, could this mean more wars based on feelings and emotions?
Now let’s ask some real questions:
4. If women are allowed in combat, could this mean now we’ll have commanders and squad leaders more reluctant to put certain soldiers under their command in the field because they’re women?
5. What if a commander treats all combat soliders equally and most or all of his female soldiers die in combat? What’s that officer’s career going to look like?
The question is fatally flawed because it is falsely premised. The question presumes that war is a result primarily rooted in US aggression -WRONG. The US wages war against aggressors and threats.
The number of wars waged will remain the same ALTHOUGH women in combat will necessarily translate into more women dead and far more women injured. THIS in addition to waging war with women in combat against male enemies who could care less about 'equality' and 'fairness'. The only 'equality' and 'fairness' that will be evidenced in combat will be that women will be just as dead and injured as the men.
War is unfair as in the fairer sex will get unfairly decimated.
Easy for you to say, Sally -- you airhead (famous airhead) -- now that you're way past the age when you might actually be asked to serve!
Conscription of women is another liberal fast-track to civilizational suicide. No wonder they call it "the death culture". Yeah, right, let's get our future mothers maimed, killed off, unable to bear, or screwed up with military stress problems and trying to raise kids anyway. Yeah, let's sign up for a big, fat slab of that.
The only possible reason for demanding that women be drafted for service in combat is a desire to spot the enemy an important advantage, which in turn rests on a buried desire that the U.S. lose its future wars against aggressors and predator nations and NGO's.
Advocacy of women in the draft and in combat units is a Judas offering. People who advocate these measures should be cut off from society, since they've already cut themselves off from faithful support of their fellow-citizens.
Actually, no, it has problems but you still need a way to mobilize.
Both the 1907 National Guard Act (written by Teddy Roosevelt to address what he felt were some problems with restrictions on his ability to "conduct foreign policy" by sending Militia units overseas, standing them up as nationalized forces for as long as he needed them) and the draft itself have constitutional problems. Those need to be addressed.
But in the nuclear age, we have to be able to react quickly, or die by failing to do so. This all needs to be dealt with, within the framework of the Founding and Original Intent.
If it is felt that Original Intent of the Framers was inadequate to the current threat environment, the deficiencies, if any are found in the Constitution, would have to be dealt with by amendment.
BUMP! to you.
Pacifism and appeasement are treason!
There was a Twilight Zone (or something similar) episode where a young boy had these extraordinary powers to punish anyone that upset him, and his family was terrified of him, and gave him anything he wanted, and he still wasn’t happy.
That is what leftists with power are.
If we get to the point where we need to “mobilize” today’s youth, we are already doomed.