Women in combat: Will they have to register for the draft?

Who Princess

brianlux wrote:

Who Princess wrote:

I think if the draft still existed we'd never have gone to war in Iraq. But that's another thread.

But you've got me curious, Who Princess, as to how that would work out. My immediate reaction is, "Wouldn't it be just the opposite" but I don't know either way. Can you fill in a bit more?

Well, Brian, old farts like you and me remember when there was a draft and it really meant you'd be going to war! I don't know about you but that experience tends to affect my perceptions.

But as for going to war in Iraq, I just think it's a lot easier to start a war that other people's children will be fighting. If nobody in Congress or most of the general public has to consider losing one of their kids, the attitude would seem to be Sure, why not? But if you're worried about your kid being drafted and sent halfway around the world on spurious evidence, you're not going to be so gung ho.

USARAY

its anothermindfuck turn18have to register dependson what kind of man you arehow you feel aboutthat

butyeahthe
ladies should register too theresequality in service and death

unsung

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

I realize that being a Ron Paul supporter means you not bother reading up on stuff before you say things.


So quick history lesson.

After the draft was ended following massive public backlash in the wake of Vietnam.... Jimmy Carter brought in a "register for the draft for no particular reason or war" and while candidate Reagan was dead-set against it, president Reagan not only extended it, he made it permanent.

Carter had made the draft law he brought in a sort of short-lived one, Reagan made it a "forever" one.

Actually I did. It was signed into law in 1917. Ford ended in 1975, and Carter brought it back in 1980. So yeah, it did exist long ago.

Try having a reply to me that you don't try and insult me. I've never once taken a shot at you. Grow up. We can disagree and both act like men.

Prince Of Dorkness

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

So quick history lesson.

After the draft was ended following massive public backlash in the wake of Vietnam.... Jimmy Carter brought in a "register for the draft for no particular reason or war" and while candidate Reagan was dead-set against it, president Reagan not only extended it, he made it permanent.

unsung wrote:

Ford ended in 1975, and Carter brought it back in 1980. So yeah, it did exist long ago.

Yes... it did exist long ago but the current law is one started by Carter and although Reagan said he would end it, he instead made it permanent. So... pretty much what I'd said.

unsung wrote:

We can disagree and both act like men.

May I ask what "acting like a man" entails?

Cosmo

I think the issue here is whether or not we want Women Serving in the military in a Combat Role. Do we?
...
I understand the arguements... Combat experience provides a greater opportunity for promotion than those in support roles. Also, not all women want combat positions.
Males who enlist are not automatically assigned combat roles. They must assume combat trainning, but may be assigned ground crew for aircraft ot vehicle maintenence roles. Those posiitions do not typically get promoted to higher ranks, which goes to those soldiers with combat experience.
...
That being said... I agree with those that say, Yes.... women 18 years of age should register with their Selective Service Draft Boards... just as the Males.
In case of a draft... which means we are at full blown declared war with China, Russia, Europe or Israel... then, the draft goes into affect. This time... NO FUCKING COLLEGE DEFERRMENTS and EVERYONE can be DRAFTED... even Bristol Palin and Paris Hilton.
If politicians had to send their kids (i.e. the G.W.Bush girls) to fucking Iraq... we'd never would have gone to fucking Iraq.

MotoDC

Cosmo wrote:

I think the issue here is whether or not we want Women Serving in the military in a Combat Role. Do we?
...
I understand the arguements... Combat experience provides a greater opportunity for promotion than those in support roles. Also, not all women want combat positions.
Males who enlist are not automatically assigned combat roles. They must assume combat trainning, but may be assigned ground crew for aircraft ot vehicle maintenence roles. Those posiitions do not typically get promoted to higher ranks, which goes to those soldiers with combat experience.
...
That being said... I agree with those that say, Yes.... women 18 years of age should register with their Selective Service Draft Boards... just as the Males.
In case of a draft... which means we are at full blown declared war with China, Russia, Europe or Israel... then, the draft goes into affect. This time... NO FUCKING COLLEGE DEFERRMENTS and EVERYONE can be DRAFTED... even Bristol Palin and Paris Hilton.
If politicians had to send their kids (i.e. the G.W.Bush girls) to fucking Iraq... we'd never would have gone to fucking Iraq.

Couldn't help but notice you snuck that in there. Are you making a statement or prediction that you'd like to make a little more clearly?

Cosmo

MotoDC wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

In case of a draft... which means we are at full blown declared war with China, Russia, Europe or Israel... then, the draft goes into affect. This time... NO FUCKING COLLEGE DEFERRMENTS and EVERYONE can be DRAFTED... even Bristol Palin and Paris Hilton.
If politicians had to send their kids (i.e. the G.W.Bush girls) to fucking Iraq... we'd never would have gone to fucking Iraq.

Couldn't help but notice you snuck that in there. Are you making a statement or prediction that you'd like to make a little more clearly?

...
Basically, the fact is we never know... our enemies of the past are now our allies... and our past allies are now our enemies (i.e. Russia/USSR et al). Israel is nuclear capable and has a fomidible military force with a combat ready Air Force (and, arguably, some of the best fighter pilots in the world). And given the volitivity of the region where they exist... anything is possible.
Point being, in case of a War with a legitimate military threat.. which only Israel, Europe, Russia and China possess... we would require a draft. Bullshit militaries such as Iraq or Iran... not so much.

PJ_Soul

What draft???

JonnyPistachio

PJ_Soul wrote:

What draft???

draft beer! its friday.

PJ_Soul

Cosmo wrote:

MotoDC wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

In case of a draft... which means we are at full blown declared war with China, Russia, Europe or Israel... then, the draft goes into affect. This time... NO FUCKING COLLEGE DEFERRMENTS and EVERYONE can be DRAFTED... even Bristol Palin and Paris Hilton.
If politicians had to send their kids (i.e. the G.W.Bush girls) to fucking Iraq... we'd never would have gone to fucking Iraq.

Couldn't help but notice you snuck that in there. Are you making a statement or prediction that you'd like to make a little more clearly?

...
Basically, the fact is we never know... our enemies of the past are now our allies... and our past allies are now our enemies (i.e. Russia/USSR et al). Israel is nuclear capable and has a fomidible military force with a combat ready Air Force (and, arguably, some of the best fighter pilots in the world). And given the volitivity of the region where they exist... anything is possible.
Point being, in case of a War with a legitimate military threat.. which only Israel, Europe, Russia and China possess... we would require a draft. Bullshit militaries such as Iraq or Iran... not so much.

No, of course women would not have to register for the draft. The fact is, most women would not be physically able to equal men on the battlefield, and them being able to match their male counterparts in terms of physical capability is requirement for them to be in combat. If women were drafted, they have to spend so much time weeding out the ones who weren't fit for combat it wouldn't be worth their while. Also, there is the small issue of families. If you draft both genders, what would become of the children of two parents who are drafted? That would have to be considered. Like it or not, women being mothers has an impact here when also considering that men are more physically suited for the job of soldier.

Who Princess

Cosmo wrote:

That being said... I agree with those that say, Yes.... women 18 years of age should register with their Selective Service Draft Boards... just as the Males.
In case of a draft... which means we are at full blown declared war with China, Russia, Europe or Israel... then, the draft goes into affect. This time... NO FUCKING COLLEGE DEFERRMENTS and EVERYONE can be DRAFTED... even Bristol Palin and Paris Hilton.
If politicians had to send their kids (i.e. the G.W.Bush girls) to fucking Iraq... we'd never would have gone to fucking Iraq.

I felt this way even when there was a REAL draft, as long as it was done equitably. Women register and are subject to being drafted, no deferments that favor those who can "buy" their way out, AND there is an option of community service in a civilian setting. Whatever you want to call it, Job Corps, Works Progress Administration, blah blah woof woof--young people still have an option to spend 2 years working in a setting where they provide a useful service and learn job skills too. With an option like that, you'd have more people enlisting and less need for the draft.

Somewhere in doing away with the draft, we seem to have gotten away from that fact that serving one's country is a worthwhile thing to do and part of being a responsible citizen. It seems that people now view someone who enlists as either desperate or stupid.

Cosmo

PJ_Soul wrote:

No, of course women would not have to register for the draft. The fact is, most women would not be physically able to equal men on the battlefield, and them being able to match their male counterparts in terms of physical capability is requirement for them to be in combat. If women were drafted, they have to spend so much time weeding out the ones who weren't fit for combat it wouldn't be worth their while. Also, there is the small issue of families. If you draft both genders, what would become of the children of two parents who are drafted? That would have to be considered. Like it or not, women being mothers has an impact here when also considering that men are more physically suited for the job of soldier.

...
But, the thing is... women in the military are the ones who want combat positions. It is because that is the fastest way to get promoted up the ranks. They will boost a Lieutenant who has proven himself in combat up the ranks before a Lieutenant in charge of the mess hall... even if the mess hall kicks ass.
I believe that if all men and women were drafted EQUALLY... not 'Rich Kid' defferments... we'd be more carful in deploying them into dangerous environments. In today's environment, it is just too easy to follow the drums of War... when you have nothing to risk.

PJ_Soul

Cosmo wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

No, of course women would not have to register for the draft. The fact is, most women would not be physically able to equal men on the battlefield, and them being able to match their male counterparts in terms of physical capability is requirement for them to be in combat. If women were drafted, they have to spend so much time weeding out the ones who weren't fit for combat it wouldn't be worth their while. Also, there is the small issue of families. If you draft both genders, what would become of the children of two parents who are drafted? That would have to be considered. Like it or not, women being mothers has an impact here when also considering that men are more physically suited for the job of soldier.

...
But, the thing is... women in the military are the ones who want combat positions. It is because that is the fastest way to get promoted up the ranks. They will boost a Lieutenant who has proven himself in combat up the ranks before a Lieutenant in charge of the mess hall... even if the mess hall kicks ass.
I believe that if all men and women were drafted EQUALLY... not 'Rich Kid' defferments... we'd be more carful in deploying them into dangerous environments. In today's environment, it is just too easy to follow the drums of War... when you have nothing to risk.

Yeah, a small number of women want combat because they want to be able to climb the ranks, which is the right thing to allow. But those are career military women; it's proper that they are afforded the opportunity to be promoted. That's not who we're talking about when we're talking about a draft.

Cosmo

PJ_Soul wrote:

Yeah, a small number of women want combat because they want to be able to climb the ranks, which is the right thing to allow. But those are career military women; it's proper that they are afforded the opportunity to be promoted. That's not who we're talking about when we're talking about a draft.

...
I understand that. It is a small number of ENLISTED women who are raising the issue of women in combat.
The question that was raised was, if women can serve in combat roles, should they have to register with the current Selective Service Draft Board, just as the male have to. In other words, in order to make the military equal... should it be equal in all aspects of the military? This would include current draft status.

PJ_Soul

Cosmo wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Yeah, a small number of women want combat because they want to be able to climb the ranks, which is the right thing to allow. But those are career military women; it's proper that they are afforded the opportunity to be promoted. That's not who we're talking about when we're talking about a draft.

...
I understand that. It is a small number of ENLISTED women who are raising the issue of women in combat.
The question that was raised was, if women can serve in combat roles, should they have to register with the current Selective Service Draft Board, just as the male have to. In other words, in order to make the military equal... should it be equal in all aspects of the military? This would include current draft status.

No, for the common sense reasons I already mentioned.

Cosmo

PJ_Soul wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Yeah, a small number of women want combat because they want to be able to climb the ranks, which is the right thing to allow. But those are career military women; it's proper that they are afforded the opportunity to be promoted. That's not who we're talking about when we're talking about a draft.

...
I understand that. It is a small number of ENLISTED women who are raising the issue of women in combat.
The question that was raised was, if women can serve in combat roles, should they have to register with the current Selective Service Draft Board, just as the male have to. In other words, in order to make the military equal... should it be equal in all aspects of the military? This would include current draft status.

No, for the common sense reasons I already mentioned.

...
Fair enough.
I am in the camp that believes if the sons AND DAUGHTERS of ALL Americans... kids of CEO and auto mechanics, Congressmen and teachers... then, we would be less likely to go to war unless it was unavoidably necessary. Iraq would never have happened if all of those people who chanted to go to war in 2003 had sons and daughters in combat uniforms.

Who Princess

Cosmo wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

No, of course women would not have to register for the draft. The fact is, most women would not be physically able to equal men on the battlefield, and them being able to match their male counterparts in terms of physical capability is requirement for them to be in combat. If women were drafted, they have to spend so much time weeding out the ones who weren't fit for combat it wouldn't be worth their while. Also, there is the small issue of families. If you draft both genders, what would become of the children of two parents who are drafted? That would have to be considered. Like it or not, women being mothers has an impact here when also considering that men are more physically suited for the job of soldier.

...
But, the thing is... women in the military are the ones who want combat positions. It is because that is the fastest way to get promoted up the ranks. They will boost a Lieutenant who has proven himself in combat up the ranks before a Lieutenant in charge of the mess hall... even if the mess hall kicks ass.
I believe that if all men and women were drafted EQUALLY... not 'Rich Kid' defferments... we'd be more carful in deploying them into dangerous environments. In today's environment, it is just too easy to follow the drums of War... when you have nothing to risk.

I'd expect the same kind of qualifiers that were used during Vietnam, Korea, WWII--married people have a lower draft classification and people with children have an even lower category. That's how it was done for men and now it would apply to both genders. I've got no problem with deferments like that because they respect the reality of family life. Exempting people because they can afford to go to college was what was unfair during Vietnam.

And as for men being more physically suited to be soldiers, sheesh. Women firefighters and police officers have to meet the same requirements as their male counterparts. And it's already been pointed out that there are women serving in combat roles NOW and have been for years in Afghanistan and Iraq.

When we had the draft, not everyone drafted went to Vietnam. There are a bazillion kinds of jobs in the military that can be filled by men or women.

Cosmo

Who Princess wrote:

I'd expect the same kind of qualifiers that were used during Vietnam, Korea, WWII--married people have a lower draft classification and people with children have an even lower category. That's how it was done for men and now it would apply to both genders. I've got no problem with deferments like that because they respect the reality of family life. Exempting people because they can afford to go to college was what was unfair during Vietnam.

And as for men being more physically suited to be soldiers, sheesh. Women firefighters and police officers have to meet the same requirements as their male counterparts. And it's already been pointed out that there are women serving in combat roles NOW and have been for years in Afghanistan and Iraq.

When we had the draft, not everyone drafted went to Vietnam. There are a bazillion kinds of jobs in the military that can be filled by men or women.

..
I agree. For every combat soldier, there are tons of support personel.
I just think that rich people who can afford to shelter their kids with college deferrments, sending the kids whose parents cannot afford a college tuition is not fair. The kid of the CEO of Bank of America shouldn't be able to hide his kid at his Alma Mater while the guy that drives a bus cannot.
And I think former President Bush would have given a lot more thought into the decision to go into Iraq, if his two daughters might face the possibility of an assignment to drive a supply truck in a convoy through Fallujah in 2004.

Dirtie_Frank

Combat arms is no place for women.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012 ... ourse.html

WASHINGTON -- The first two female lieutenants to volunteer for the Marine Corps’ Infantry Officer Course failed to complete the program, the Marine Corps said Tuesday.
The first woman did not finish the combat endurance test at the beginning for the course in late September. Twenty-six of the 107 male Marines also did not finish the endurance test.
The second woman could not complete two required training events “due to medical reasons,” said Capt. Eric Flanagan, a Marine spokesman.
She is receiving treatment and is in “good condition,” Flanagan said, though the Marine Corps is not releasing specifics about her medical condition or any identifying information about either of the women.
The women will now attend their primary military occupational specialty schools, Flanagan said.

The Corps decided earlier this year to allow female lieutenants to attend its school for infantry officers as part of a larger effort to gather data on how to expand the role of women in combat. Male infantry officers must complete the 10-week course after graduating from The Basic School.
In addition to allowing women to volunteer for IOC, the Marines will allow enlisted women to volunteer to train with the infantry training battalion for research purposes. The Corps will give men and women volunteers a strength test to see how they respond to heavy machine gun lift, casualty evacuation and “march under load” assessments, according to a service-wide message released in April.
As part of the assessment process, the Marine Corps will assign some active-duty female officers and high-ranking enlisted female Marines to certain jobs in combat-related battalions for the first time. The units -- including artillery, tank, combat engineer, combat assault, low altitude air defense and assault amphibious battalions -- are all in the women’s existing specialties. Female Navy medical officers, chaplains and corpsmen now may also be assigned to those battalions.
Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos will use the information gathered in the test programs and initiatives to make recommendations about how to change the policies that currently bar women from combat.

PJ_Soul

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

Combat arms is no place for women.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012 ... ourse.html

WASHINGTON -- The first two female lieutenants to volunteer for the Marine Corps’ Infantry Officer Course failed to complete the program, the Marine Corps said Tuesday.
The first woman did not finish the combat endurance test at the beginning for the course in late September. Twenty-six of the 107 male Marines also did not finish the endurance test.
The second woman could not complete two required training events “due to medical reasons,” said Capt. Eric Flanagan, a Marine spokesman.
She is receiving treatment and is in “good condition,” Flanagan said, though the Marine Corps is not releasing specifics about her medical condition or any identifying information about either of the women.
The women will now attend their primary military occupational specialty schools, Flanagan said.

The Corps decided earlier this year to allow female lieutenants to attend its school for infantry officers as part of a larger effort to gather data on how to expand the role of women in combat. Male infantry officers must complete the 10-week course after graduating from The Basic School.
In addition to allowing women to volunteer for IOC, the Marines will allow enlisted women to volunteer to train with the infantry training battalion for research purposes. The Corps will give men and women volunteers a strength test to see how they respond to heavy machine gun lift, casualty evacuation and “march under load” assessments, according to a service-wide message released in April.
As part of the assessment process, the Marine Corps will assign some active-duty female officers and high-ranking enlisted female Marines to certain jobs in combat-related battalions for the first time. The units -- including artillery, tank, combat engineer, combat assault, low altitude air defense and assault amphibious battalions -- are all in the women’s existing specialties. Female Navy medical officers, chaplains and corpsmen now may also be assigned to those battalions.
Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos will use the information gathered in the test programs and initiatives to make recommendations about how to change the policies that currently bar women from combat.

Well duh. Haven't you all seen G.I. Jane? (it's actually a pretty entertaining movie). Very few women will be able to qualify for combat. The point is they deserve the opportunity to try. And every once in a while a woman will manage it. Like, the ones who are physical freaks of nature.