[Bill Gold]

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

I will also explain why women should not participate in a representative government due to their lack of military responsibility in keeping the United States of America a free country.

I’ve said this before, but I’ll say it again. There are women in the armed services. Women do put their lives on the line to protect America, this isn’t some task that only men perform. Also, it’s not just the armed forces that continue to keep America free. I would argue that the House of Representatives (which passes the laws permitting military spending) and the percentage of the American public that votes regularly (since we elect our representatives to the House of Representatives) also keeps America free. I think that women are as responsible for America’s safety as the chauvinistic male population has allowed them to be. It’s not like women have been arguing to be kept off of the front lines in wars. I’m sure it has been the butch male dominated military brass that’s afraid of women / homosexuals proving themselves to be straight men’s equals in battle.

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

It's really quite simple- if we don't wage war on the evils of the world, we will lose our freedom. Therefore, at times we must increase the size of our standing army.

Why is it that so many people only see violence and conflict as the answer to everything? Why don’t people look for the root of the “evil,” or what I think would more accurately be described as hatred or jealousy? The people who hate us have been raised in extremely poor conditions with very limited, sometimes false, and most likely biased (usually of the zealous religious kind) education. These people live off of less than each of us spends for our lunch drink per day. Why don’t we rectify this problem, and try to help give these poor people a decent education, proper nourishment, and at least a sleeping bag to sleep in. I strongly believe that if America would drastically increase funding for programs like the Peace Corps and AmeriCorps and give them this mission that in 100 years there will not be as much disdain for our country. Yes, America has donated $5 billion to African AIDS programs, but $5 billion is less than half of the annual contribution under the Clinton administration (President Bush has cut funding to programs that provide abortions and contraception instead of promoting abstinence). $5 billion dollars is also a drop in the bucket compared to America’s annual budget. If we remain the arrogant, greedy, and self-serving country that we are at the moment then we just allow this hatred to snowball even more and additionally endanger ourselves.

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

The United States has a history of protecting those who are helpless or need assistance.

You’re mistaken. The American judicial system and United States Trustees codes have helped MBNA repossess my neighbor’s car because they extended him a line of credit to buy the Geo Metro knowing full well he couldn’t make the payments. <facetiousness>I guess it makes sense that people making less than $25,000 per year should have a line of credit more than twice that much</facetiousness>. The US Trustee refuses to accept that there is such a thing as “Predatory Lending,” just like President Bush isn’t convinced that Global Warming exists.

We may have helped some countries in need, but not because of some noble “people must be free” ideal. We have removed dictators and foreign armies because they do not fit into our plans. In the case of the Gulf War, given a choice between a Kuwaiti run Kuwait and an Iraqi run Kuwait, we chose a Kuwaiti government because they were more pro-American. Do we have a right to tell other countries who should rule them? I don’t think so. If we set the precedent of one country overthrowing another’s government then what’s preventing us from being on the receiving side of this treatment when our military isn’t “the strongest in the world?”

Being a world superpower, we have the ability to draw a moral line that clearly shows where we stand on how we treat other countries, how we treat prisoners of war, and how we treat everyone in general. It’s disgusting, saddening, and angering to see Americans being beheaded, burned, and mutilated on television and in other media, but we need to show ourselves to be better than that. We need to give our prisoners food, toilets, and a FAIR AND PUBLIC trial with access to attorneys. Treating others the way they treat us gets us nowhere. We must earn the respect of the world by having more humane procedures and treatments of our prisoners. For example, if we continue to abuse Iraqis then what right do we have to ask China or North Korea to stop their human rights abuses? <edit>We should never settle for just treating others only how they treat us. Despite the atrocities commited against us there is no justification for "sinking to their level"</edit>. We need to show the utmost respect to the rest of the world. The job of stamping out hatred in the third world is a job that would take forever if we tried it alone. We need the blessing and assistance, monetary and personnel, of other superpowers (England, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, China, Japan, Canada, and Australia) to accomplish this daunting goal within the next 100 or 200 years. We can’t afford to piss them off more than we already have.

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

I believe any person who joins the military should be commended, particularly women; including allowing those women the right to hold office or vote. They have accepted their military responsibility and should be allowed to participate in our representative government. Men, even if they have never served in the military accept their military responsibility by registering for the draft. Any man who does not register for the draft should not be allowed to participate in government.

Registering for the draft during a time without a draft does no more to serve your country than not registering. There is no draft. There will not be a draft in the foreseeable future. What if there was a draft and your number and my number weren’t called? We didn’t serve our country in battle, yet you would argue that we should be allowed to retain our right to vote. The only guaranteed way to serve your country in battle is to volunteer for the armed forces (and that’s assuming we’ve decided to go topple a country or are still in the process or occupying one). You and I are in no more jeopardy of being impressed into the armed services than Lisa Perez, Amanda Morrison, LauraN, a breezy era, or any of the other women on these boards. You and I shouldn’t have more rights as a citizen than these politically passionate women. If so, then we’re starting multiple castes of American citizenship. How will that work? One pays taxes, another one doesn’t, one has mandatory military service, another doesn’t, one can vote, another can’t, one can work for the FBI, and another can’t? What’s next? Will one caste be allowed to procreate, and another not?

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

…feminists are not trying to lobby the government for inclusion into the draft.

I wouldn’t make that assumption. There are many lobbies in Washington D.C. that aren’t publicized very well.

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

I think I did a pretty decent job unless someone can explain in a reasonable manner, without personal attacks, and with actual points why women should not be required to register for the draft.

I’m not arguing that women should be prevented from being drafted. I think most of us believe that men and women should be treated equally. I do take exception to your assertion that because women are not registered to be drafted that they should not have the right to vote or hold elected office. Why should men who have not been drafted or otherwise served in the military have the right to vote and hold elected office and women who haven’t been drafted be excluded? Is it because we filled out some form that they didn’t?

Another point I’d like to bring up is that many of our best, and the world’s best, politicians and philosophers did not serve in the military. Should we exclude these people from being able to serve our country in their more natural capacity because they didn’t first serve it with a weapon? Inclusion of ideas is much better than exclusion.

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

…the porche owners club is set to decide the name of the new porsche. The negative side of being in the porsche owners club is that you have to buy a porsche to join. Should someone's vote who is not part of the club be treated equally to someone who is not in the club? Club members would probably not enjoy having the same rights and voting power as someone not in the club.

Porsche is a privately owned company. The club doesn't decide on the names. Not even the shareholders decide on the names. I don’t think your analogy works.

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

If I seem offensive, it's only because people don't like the truth.

Mike, I think that was a little out of line. First of all, there is no truth in your argument because it’s opinion. Truth has to do with correct or falseness. People may think you’re offensive because they don’t like your opinions. This is not the same as not liking the truth. Saying that people might be offended at what you you’ve said because they don’t like the truth makes you sound much more arrogant than I think you intended. I’m pretty sure you didn’t mean to sound like that when you originally wrote that, but I think a little double checking word selection is in order.

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

Perhaps she could not be conscripted, but she could voluntarily enlist.

So could you. So could I. We haven’t (at least I don’t think you have). How are we serving our country more than a woman who hasn’t voluntarily enlisted? We aren’t.

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

We use a representative goverment to maintian order in the country. Other countries use fear and violence to keep their citzens in check.

The US government has done its fair share of using fear and violence against its citizens to keep them in check. Japanese Internment camps? Kent State? There are many examples that can counter that statement.

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

The men and women of Congress were put into place to represent their people, because they are much wiser than you or I. They have already served their time as possible draftees. You're not really suggesting that they shouldn't decide what we due with our military simply because they are too old or handicaped to participate are you?

First of all, no, not all congresspersons are smarter than us. Don’t ever assume that people in high places are smarter than you and know what they’re doing. Each congressperson is directly elected by their district, which means that just about anyone with name recognition could win a House district.

Yes they have lived past their draftable days. But again, if they (men) didn’t serve in the armed forces then they haven’t served their country anymore than a woman of the same age. If you only want people who have been draftable in office then President Bush would certainly have his right to vote taken away (since he was enlisted in the National Guard at the time. Btw, the National Guard during the Vietnam War was a way of AVOIDING combat; not volunteering ahead of conscripts like it is today.).

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

Fair enough, I'll earn my right to vote by registering for the draft, risking personal safety, and ensuring you have the liberty to embarass me.

We haven’t been conscripted yet, and there’s a very, very, very, very slim chance we ever will be. At this moment we are as much in harms way as the women of this country who aren’t already in the armed forces. You and I aren’t protecting anyone’s way of life other than by exchanging our ideas (which is a much underrated form of protecting our country). The only way you and I have earned our votes is by virtue of turning 18 and registering ourselves, the same way women earn theirs. It’s the law we live by, and there’s almost no chance of it changing.