[MikeDubreuil]

Originally Posted by Bill Gold

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.

There are women in the armed services, no question about it. They are there by choice. My question is why the feminists have argued for all the rights they have received but have stopped short of registering for a military draft.

Originally Posted by Bill Gold

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.

The answer to “everything” is a double-edged sword. On one side there's violence, on the other there's humanitarianism. The trouble is that both are very expensive. We only have so much money in our budget and have to use it wisely.

Since we have the strongest military in the world, the world sees us as “the” military for the United Nations. Which causes many in America to seriously question our UN involvement. Either way, we can't just drop our military budget, there's too many people out to kill US citizens.

Humanitarianism, is just as expensive if not more. Not to mention, just because you're nice doesn't mean people will automatically be nice to you. A big question right now is whether the Iraqi people can even handle a democracy, they live totally differently than US citizens and may not be able to adapt. Seriously, we haven't even stopped to consider whether they even want a democracy, we just feel it's the best form of government.

On Iraq, the US can't leave until all the radicals are controlled, or the new Iraqi government can control the radicals on their own. In Iraq, we're seeing most problems stemming out of radical Islam, rather than a new democracy.

Iraq is a perfect example of why humanitarianism would not work. Their lives are not run by government, but by their religion. Iraqis want us to pull out of Iraq not because we are not benefiting them, more because there are Christians in their Islamic Holy Land. They don't care about the food, clothes or schools they don't want us there because the US is viewed as a “Christian Force” telling Islams what to do. In the United States, we have separation of Church and State. In many countries around the world religion is intimately tied with the government as it is in the Middle East.

Originally Posted by Bill Gold

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?”

Well that's the benefit of being the most powerful nation in the world. If we see wrong we can change it. That doesn't mean that we fix all the problems of the world, but we try to fix some of them. I would rather help other nations and fix the problems with the world rather than be completely neutral like Sweden.

Originally Posted by Bill Gold

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.

Whether you feel you serve your country by registering for the draft is determined by how important you feel the draft is. One mission of the Selective Service is to “to provide manpower to the armed forces in an emergency.”

I don't quite understand how you can say we won't be using the draft for the foreseeable future because the draft is used in emergencies. How can you predict emergencies?

Tomorrow, Iran could invade Iraq, Pakistan could invade Afghanistan and China could be sending troops to California. We would have a national emergency on our hands. The draft would be started and you and I could be holding M4A1 assault riffles by the end of the week. You can't predict when evil will strike and what emergencies will bring.

The draft is an important tool in our arsenal to protect the freedoms of the United States. My best friend and I made a pact. If the United States called a draft we would go to our hometown of Enfield, Connecticut and enlist with a local recruiter. If the US needed people in the military badly enough to call a draft, we must serve to protect ourselves, our family, our friends and our country. To me, and I'm sure many Americans the draft is a very serious and important process.

Originally Posted by Bill Gold

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.

Like I said before, the draft is a very important tool in protecting the United States. If the draft wasn't around, you can't blame the individual. However, if the draft was around, and they hid from it, I find it a little more difficult to respect them.

Originally Posted by Bill Gold

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.

The analogy works if you kept in mind that part of the criteria for the analogy was that Porsche was allowing the Porsche Owner's Club to decide the name of the new car.

Originally Posted by Bill Gold

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.

You are completely correct, when you take that sentence out of context I sounded out of line, offensive, and arrogant. However, if you include the whole paragraph, particularly this part: “The truth is that women aren't required to register for the draft and the reasoning behind it is most likely prejudiced and many would find offensive.” Then the sentence doesn't sound so bad.

Perhaps it is my opinion that the reason women aren't included in the draft is offensive. I would be welcome to here any other opinions as to the reason women are not allowed to serve in the draft.

To fully answer the question I just asked you have to tackle the real issue which the Department of Defense claims is the reason women are not allowed in front line combat.