[Bill Gold]

Military service and voting rights (or citizenship) have been connected to each other since the ancient Greek city states. The Athenian city state required that all voting men had to serve in the military if need be. They fought for their way of life. The right of voting has since been given in other civilizations / countries to noncombatant members of society, as well, for other valid reasons like taxation (“no taxation without representation”). But we’ve omitted those reasons in this discussion and focused on military service and eligibility of being drafted. <edit>I may, however, bring some of these issues up in future posts.</edit>

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

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.

I don’t see this as a question that requires an answer. At this point in time registering for the draft isn’t a necessary precondition for voting if you’re a man. Yes, we can be punished with a $250,000 fine and up to 5 years in prison, but we do not lose our right to vote.

At this point in time I’d like to declare that being a woman is not a necessary precondition for being a feminist. In 1980 President Carter reinstated the registration of persons for possible draft purposes, and at that time he requested that congress amend the Military Selective Service Act to include women in the draftable pool. This request was not acted upon by the congress. Eventually Rostker v. Goldberg made its way to the Supreme Court and a decision stating that exclusion of women in the draft process wasn’t unconstitutional. I think that President Carter was politically ahead of his time in requesting that women be required along with men to register for the draft. He was a very socially conscious president, and continues today to be a voice of knowledge, experience, and reason.

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

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.

I don’t think that the rest of the world sees the United States as the UN’s military. On the contrary, I believe that the rest of the world sees the UN as the United States’ tool for justifying doing whatever we want. We force resolutions through the UN that impose sanctions against other countries for things like human rights abuses which we ourselves commit. We have proven that we only care about the UN when they are on our side, but when they disagree with our proposed course of action (Iraq) we view the UN with insouciance. How can we expect other countries to abide by UN mandates/resolutions when we do not?

I’m not suggesting that we should eliminate our armed forces in favor of a strictly humanitarian mission throughout the world. I agree that there is a time and a place for war and that having a standing army is a good preventative step against an attack. But look at what we have done with $200 billion in Iraq. We’ve toppled a dictatorship, yes, but we’ve done very little to rebuild the country. We’re paying for the occupation, and not the rebuilding, education, job training, etc. that is needed to have any chance at stabilizing that country. We have also shown our country to hold grudges against others who oppose our actions (by preventing French, German, and Russian companies from bidding on reconstructive contracts in Iraq, and then offending them further by calling those countries part of “Old Europe”). After all of this and more we could talk about I don’t blame other people for wanting to kill us.

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

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.

It may be more expensive up front, but in the long run the only other option that would better benefit our country would be to annihilate every square meter of the earth that we don’t want for ourselves. I don’t think any of us wants to kill innocent people just to make sure we get the ones who hate us. You can’t win a guerilla war against terrorism. You may be able to stop a few attacks and you may be able to kill a few terrorist leaders, but as long as people are oppressed and see their fellow humans being killed by the “evil empire” known as America, England, or Israel (to name a few) then there will be an endless supply of terrorists hell bent on instilling fear on us. This is why it’s necessary to curb this hatred by providing these people with an education and a standard of life that is enjoyable or good enough so that they do not hate us or feel jealous of our flamboyantly materialistic appearance. You’re right that these people will not automatically love us if we decide to pursue a humanitarian course. I will not make the mistake that our leadership did by proclaiming that these people will line the streets with rose petals for us. This process will take years and years to reap benefits from, and will only happen if we put forth an incredible effort.

I also do not believe in forcing a democratic government upon a country that does not want one. The people of Iraq are used to totalitarian dictatorships. They do not know what they have not experienced, and our country isn’t doing a good job of selling the idea of democracy to them. I doubt it will work.

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

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.

With all due respect Mike, I believe that you are wrong here. This is where I pull out my trusty Statesman’s Yearbook: The essential political and economic guide to all the countries of the world. There is no doubt that the majority of Iraqis are one form of Muslim or another, but I believe that you are mistaken when you say that Iraqis want Americans out of their country because we have Christians among us. Yes Islam has been the state religion, but their old constitution stipulated the freedom of religion and the right to every religion to practice however they wanted. Iraq’s defense minister before our invasion was a Christian. This isn’t as much an Islam vs. Christianity conflict as people might think.

As for our own separation of church and state… While we may not officially name one particular form of Christianity our state religion, we might as well. “In God we trust” is a blatantly Judeo-Christian reference. Having “Under God” in the pledge of allegiance is another Judeo-Christian reference. The pledge especially ticks me off since the “under God” part was added in the mid-1900’s as a fruitless attempt at uncovering “Godless Communist” spies. The Alabama State Supreme Court chief justice had to have his statue of the 10 Commandments forcibly removed from the courthouse not one year ago. Separation between church and state is a myth in this country. It’s all too obvious that we are a Christian country no matter how much we claim not to be.

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

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.

What problems have we fixed? We’ve rid two countries of dictatorships, and given them nothing but pseudo feudal warlord rule in Afghanistan and an endless occupation with no plan for self-sustaining government in Iraq. We “fix” things that only benefit us, and we only fix them enough so that we can get our cut and get out.

As I pull out my Statesman’s Yearbook again…

At least in Sweden has fixed their healthcare system so that all residents (citizen or not) receive whatever care they need, when they need it, and at no cost to the patient. That’s better than I can say for the USA.

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

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.

Here’s a question for you. Should the draft be a proper means of raising an army for purely offensive reasons? Do you think that if we were going to unilaterally attack Nigeria for some reason that the draft would be a proper way to raise an army to carry out that mission? I, personally, don’t think it is. So this leads us to the idea that the draft is a last ditch way to raise an army purely for defense of our country. If Iran invaded Iraq or if Pakistan invaded Afghanistan this would not be an invasion of the United States (especially when we proclaim that we’re just over there as peacekeepers, and not occupying those countries as colonies of the United States. They supposedly have sovereignty.), and therefore would not be any cause for us to draft citizens to fight.

If China attacked the US (which socio-politically and economically would make no sense for them to do, but for the sake of argument we’ll use this example) there would be some advanced warning by radar, spy satellites, human intelligence inside China, or a formal declaration of war sent a month in advance (wishful thinking ). This kind of war is what our military has been built for, a war against a defined country. Our navy, army, and air force have the equipment and training needed to perform against this kind of opponent. It would be very foolish for a country to attack us, because they would be made short work of. I doubt that you or I would ever need to be called up to defend our country (not offensively fight for, because as stated before that’s not what drafts should be used for) unless all of the other superpowers team up against us (which could happen if we don’t stop pissing other countries off with our arrogance).

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

However, if the draft was around, and they hid from it, I find it a little more difficult to respect them.

President Clinton, President Bush, VP Cheney, and the list could go on forever.

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

If I seem offensive, it's only because people don't like the truth. 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. Or to reiiterate what I said before, are there any good reasons why women should not be required to register for the draft?

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

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.

I don’t know about that. It doesn’t look much better with the context. It’s not that your message is offensive, it how it’s stated. Maybe it’s a problem with the written words not having proper intonation or tonal expressions, but I’ve read that a few times and can’t really find a way to read it that isn’t at least a little biting.

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

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.

First of all, the commonly used term should be “registering for the draft” and not “serving in the draft.” Serving implies an actual service that you perform. You and I put our names and personal information into that system for our own personal reasons. Mine were to avoid the $250,000 fine and/or 5 year prison term, to be able to receive possible government financial aid, and to be able to apply for a government job in the future. You may have had different reasons for filling out that form, and more power to you if you did, but if your reason for filling out that form was to “serve your country” then you should have just enlisted in one way or another. If neither of us is drafted into service then neither of us is eligible to receive payment from the US armed forces. We are not performing a job for them, and therefore are not being paid. There is no service.

I’m glad you’ve taken up my suggestion from post #14 and asked why women shouldn’t be allowed into frontline combat. I take it that you agree with me that they should be every bit entitled to fight on the front lines as men. Go us!

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

You don't mind having the freedoms of a US citizen as long as other people (read: men) die.

Women die and suffer in war, too. They may not be on the “frontlines,” but there are female deaths and injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan.