GOP-led Committee Votes to Require That Women Register for Draft


#1

Women would be required to register for the military draft under a House committee’s bill that comes just months after the Defense Department lifted all gender-based restrictions on front-line combat units.
A divided Armed Services Committee backed the provision in a sweeping defense policy bill that the full House will consider next month, touching off a provocative debate about the role of women in the military. The panel also turned aside a measure backed by Democrats to punish the Citadel military college in South Carolina for flying the Confederate flag.
The United States has not had a military draft since 1973 in the Vietnam War era, but all men must register with the Selective Service Systems within 30 days of turning 18. Military leaders maintain that the all-volunteer force is working and the nation is not returning to the draft.

The 32-30 vote Wednesday night came with a twist: The proposal’s author didn’t back it.

House committee votes to require women to register for draft

To even think that republicans would even consider having women register flies in the face of what republicanism used to be and not the current crop of GOP led leaders who share the democrats in their zeal to reform this nation into something bereft the constitution.


#2

Well, they wanted equality…


#3

Disagree. And I chime in, because at one time I felt the same.

It’s the ulterior motive we need to examine. They, these Leftists and their fronts in government, KNOW how traditional Americans will react to females in body bags coming back from the military. They’ll be repulsed. They’ll want it stopped.

Populate the military with little girls…and what that will mean is NO…WAR.

And since, contrary to Leftist dogma, the United States is THE ONE NON-IMPERIALIST nation…what that will mean is no more DEFENSIVE wars. (Keep in mind that a defensive war can be strategic as well as in response to obvious homeland attack.)

So what that means is…the Left gets the peace it craves, with the acquiescence of traditional Americans. The peace of SUBJUGATION. Leaving the collectivist outside powers to loot, rape, pillage and burn.

Which is also what the Left wants and craves. THEY WANT TO BE SERFS. Notice how they all fawn over Eurotrash royalty?

This is a big step towards their Utopia, of a one-world Commissariat. Already the election is trashed; once again, the Groupthink Elites have shouted and stamped down Americans.

State Secession is THE LAST CHANCE. The United States as we know it is GONE - we can take it apart and then rebuild it; or we can watch our individual rights burn on the same pyre as this once-great nation is being incinerated on.


#4

I am of the mind that if they want to serve in combat roles and want equality that bad then we should treat them no different than men. That is true equality. Don’t let them pick and choose their “equality”. It is all or nothing.


#5

I don’t see this as being the reason behind the movement. We are one of few nations who did not allow women in infantry or combat arms roles.
I believe it’s just more forced equality from a liberal crusade. I do believe it will result in lowered standards to allow women to perform the roles, which will hurt combat effectiveness.

However, if the left wants equality, I say give them equality. Make them meet the standards that males have to meet. That includes the draft.


#6

Response is to the bolded lines.

Virtually all industrialized nations exclude women from combat positions. Many, maybe most of them have experimented in women in the front lines - those experiments failed and have been ended. Israel is the most obvious example.

Women have always been in support roles, officially or unofficially; in uniform or out; in Women’s corps or integrated. I have a MINOR problem with that - in that a lot of the cream positions, which would be used to rotate exhausted troops out to, and pull fresh troops from, are thus occupied by those who cannot effectively serve in front-line billets; but that is something that the modern American military functions well in-spite-of.

But women on the front lines…does not work. It cuts effectiveness. It’s a distraction. About ten years ago, a front-line sergeant in the Army (IIRC) was doing a prototype blog from Iraq on the front lines - before the blog format was popular. He talked about the problems of women in his platoon.

No, not sex problems. Not even physical-exhaustion problems. That of COMPLETE LACK of physical privacy.

He described a troop movement, made under near-flight, near-panic conditions, involving 24 hours of being moved by a transportation corps. In a Humvee for about nine hours. No ability to stop for latrine. They urinated in cups; they defecated in bags. While jammed in, fifteen of them in one Humvee.

The women were prone to dehydration and bladder conditions. Why? Because they didn’t want to urinate while in close quarters with male squad-mates. So they didn’t hydrate enough.

They all stank. There was no shower or clean clothing or even ability to wipe the nethers. This for days and weeks at a stretch. Did the men want to stink like goats in front of these women? Of course not. But the women didn’t like smelling like garbage around these men, either.

It doesn’t work. The Israelies and the Australians and others saw it and admitted it. Why must we work so hard to deny reality?


#7

Because we want to deny the difference between men and women.


#8

I don’t understand your opposition to my statement:

We are one of few nations who did not allow women in infantry or combat arms roles.

Do feel that’s an untrue statement? Are you denying that many other nations have placed women in infantry or combat arms roles?

Notice that I’m not proclaiming their effectiveness. I merely stated a fact.

To your original disagreement:
Do you believe that war hawks actually care what gender they throw onto the battlefield?
Keep in mind to song Fortunate Son by CCR. "I aint no Senator’s son no no no…"
The elected gov’t, for the most part, finds ways around laws and duties that the rest of us unwashed peasants cannot. They commonly exempt themselves, and their families.

One more thing:
I do not support pushing females into Combat Arms. My reason is not because I’m scared to see dead daughters coming home in body bags. My reason is that for the vast majority, they cannot pass the trials with the physical standards set for the men. So, thanks to our politically correct society, we will be forced to lower standards in order to accommodate females into roles they would otherwise not be able to perform.

Higher standards are what keeps our military far and above the other nations of the world.

You pointed out the failures of women in combat arms for other nations. I do not dispute this. Matter of fact, I point to that as further proof of the inefficacy of this policy. Lowering standards does not produce higher quality troops.

However, I will restate my position on this:
If that is the way we have to play, forced equality, then make it equal all around. That includes the draft. It would be nice if we could un-exempt lawmaker’s families at the same time. We all know that won’t happen though.


#9

I hold that it’s statistically untrue. Other nations have experimented with the concept - and rejected it, often very-quickly.

This is an unworkable concept that degrades troop effectiveness. And troop effectiveness is how wars are won - and how casualties are kept to a minimum.

Einstein is purported to have said, that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Unless…(obviously)…the AIM of this policy is to degrade readiness and effectiveness, lose wars, and thus make the public war-averse and ready to accept passive subjugation.


#10

Americans lost their “taste” for war decades ago. Since WW II, what war have we fought to WIN??? (Grenada doesn’t count.) We have been content with draws or outright losses–thanks to our political “leadership” and NOT a reflection on our military troops who win every battle, only to have the rug pulled out from under them by the politicians.


#11

Taste for war? The DESIRE for war is a perversion. There is nothing good in war - except its ending; its ending naturally in settling issues which were pushed to the final, primal challenge.

War, total war, is a peace plan that works. War avoided is then fought as terrorism and guerrilla strikes in irregular convflict - violent but covert. War shortens this and ends it and settles it finally - if allowed to proceed from violent challenges

If you want peace, prepare for, in material and mind, war. If you plan for peace, you will have war - and then out of it, subjugation and enslavement.


#12

I believe 13 nations in Europe/Asia still have it. You can google it if you really want. I know several countries had females in infantry while I was still in uniform, and they were part of our coalition for OEF/OIF. I haven’t heard of them being scrapped.

Once again, just to be clear, I’m not in favor of it.
The aim of the policy is social engineering.


#13

Those thirteen nations are not the Arsenal of Democracy.

Any time there’s a world conflict, you can count on those thirteen, and others, to offer plenty of sideline support.

When there’s an ugly job that has to be done, or that liberals deem has to be done, it falls upon the American Fighting Man to fight and often die for it.


#14

I don’t recall saying they were.


#15

[quote=“samspade, post:1, topic:48675”]
To even think that republicans would even consider having women register flies in the face of what republicanism used to be and not the current crop of GOP led leaders who share the democrats in their zeal to reform this nation into something bereft the constitution.[/FONT]
[/quote]That Republicans or any government official would even consider having anyone register for the draft is travesty and an assault on the individual liberty that is supposed to be protected by the government in its primary and most important function.


#16

I believe that people have been drafted into service since the founding. I could be wrong on that though, I’d have to do some reading. I was under the impression that an all volunteer force was relatively new, having been done away with right after the revolution from England. **Could very well be wrong on that, just to my recollection.


#17

Don’t know either. The founders probably just accepted it as a way things are done. It doesn’t make them right. It’s a long-standing tradition in our world. We should end the Selective Service and permanently move away from conscription.


#18

I disagree. Remember the 2nd Amendment mentions a “militia?” The militia of that time was every adult, able-bodied man capable of bearing arms and the Continental Army was NOT all-volunteer. There was “conscription” of a sort and one could buy oneself out of that responsibility with cash. Every subsequent war in which we’ve found ourselves–until 1973, that is–has drafted for the manpower to fight that war. The draft hasn’t disappeared. You still have to register for the draft within 30 days of turning 18. We just have decided to rely on volunteers instead and currently do NOT draft soldiers, sailors or airmen. If women REALLY want “equality” they should register for the draft too…but we all know that “equality” isn’t what they are after.


#19

[quote=“Pappadave, post:18, topic:48675”]
I disagree. Remember the 2nd Amendment mentions a “militia?” The militia of that time was every adult, able-bodied man capable of bearing arms and the Continental Army was NOT all-volunteer. There was “conscription” of a sort and one could buy oneself out of that responsibility with cash. Every subsequent war in which we’ve found ourselves–until 1973, that is–has drafted for the manpower to fight that war. The draft hasn’t disappeared. You still have to register for the draft within 30 days of turning 18. We just have decided to rely on volunteers instead and currently do NOT draft soldiers, sailors or airmen. If women REALLY want “equality” they should register for the draft too…but we all know that “equality” isn’t what they are after.
[/quote]That was my understanding of it as well. I did a little online reading, and this pretty much seems to be the case. Of course, I will leave my standard “Internet Knowledge” disclaimer: The Internet says it’s true, doesn’t mean it’s true.


#20

The Federalist Papers make it plain; when Publius contrasts between a militia, which was essential, and a standing army, which in his opinion was a serious risk to freedom.