Women and the Draft

[Venkatesh]

Hello everybody,

I am very impressed by this thread. The way it is being run mostly expresses a possibility for fair and open debate on the Chiefdelphi forums, something which several people have alleged is impossible. I hope that in the future on this thread, people will not attack each other personally. Other than that, good and informed opinions are being expressed.

I am impressed by the citations to relevant laws, policies, and Supreme Court cases. And I am also very impressed by the abundance of good grammar, something rare on the Internet, even around these parts.

Good job and keep on posting!

[Madison]

I feel the smallest twinge of regret that some think that I’ve resorted to “personal attacks” in what I’ve written here – but it’s only a small twinge, really. The sentiment being defended here is bigoted and sexist and hateful and it’s being defended solely by Mike Dubreuil – so, as far as I’m concerned, this has everything to do with him and is very personal. I have every intent of calling his character and motivation into question alongside his ideas. Both are in dire need of examination, so any attempt at trying to dissuade me from writing more or from censoring myself will be fruitless. Likewise, attempts at discrediting my arguments by framing them as a “personal attack” – as if it’s some negative sort of thing – will surely be overlooked.

Mike – I have no doubt that I’m far, far superior to you and people like you. I believe in equality for all people and I have the intelligence and hindsight to understand the struggles these groups face; something you’ve continued to show a lack of insight toward.

Let's throw in an assumption of my personal beliefs too.

You wrote previously, “Things like the draft bring me to the following conclusion: women should not have the right to vote or hold public office.”

So, again, you have concluded that women are not worthy of the same rights, freedoms and opportunities as you. What about that is an assumption about your presumed superiority, exactly? It seems pretty cut and dry to me.

Of course, I’m not surprised that the backpedaling you’ve begun will continue as you go off trying to pretend that you haven’t expressed such sentiment. I see it already when you post little disclaimers at the end of your writing trying to absolve yourself of responsibility for the opinions you present. In the real world, disclaimers are useless and little more than a useful indication of how scared you are of being held accountable for your actions.

You later write, “I don't think women should be forced into the serving the military, I also don't think they should lose their ability to participate in the government.” So, you feel that we shouldn’t lose our ability to participate in government, but that we don’t deserve it in the first place? I think that the only person hoping I’ve made any assumptions about your beliefs is you.

There's another assumption. I do not believe that the only way of defending a freedom is by the use of violence. Martin Luther King effectively faught [sic] for the rights of African Americans without using violence.

Since you seem to be a bit absent-minded about the bigotry you were so vehemently defending yesterday, let me remind me you that you wrote, once again, “Things like the draft bring me to the following conclusion: women should not have the right to vote or hold public office. I find it interesting that women want equal rights; yet, they don't have to be a part of the draft.”
You followed that with, “This thread is about women and their involvement in protecting their freedoms.” So, let’s take a moment to deconstruct these statements and connect the dots, okay?

You’ve argued that women are undeserving of the right to vote and the right to hold public office because, as you go on to say, they are denied access to conscription by existing laws that violate a whole pile of other laws and amendments. You follow up by arguing, repeatedly, that military service is the only way people have ever defended our freedoms with remarks akin to, “Unfortunately, the feminist [sic] all to [sic] easily forget that it's America's soldiers and war [sic] who have given them the rights they enjoy today.”

So, which is it, Mike? Do you believe that those who’ve taken civil action to combat injustice are preserving our freedom? Are they doing a lesser job of it than those who take up arms against other people? You’ve acknowledged the contributions of Martin Luther King Jr., but you seem to be denying that his effort were just as, if not more, effective than the military campaigns of – oh, let’s say the Cuban Missile Crisis – the last military action to directly endanger the United States. I can’t help but have mountains more respect for people who accomplish change without resorting to violence, and I’m far more interested in defending and preserving their memory than I am in honoring those who volunteer to kill people or those who force others to kill people without their consent.

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

You’re content in earning your right to vote by filling out some paperwork and receiving federal financial aid for your college education, but a woman has to earn her right to vote by enlisting in the military and proving she’s equal to men, by your logic, since sexist bigots have blocked her ability to sign up for conscription in the first place. Here’s a newsflash, Mike – that pesky little idea about women proving their equality is inherently sexist. We don’t have to prove anything to men, especially you, because you’re not superior in any way. Deal with it.

Obviously, Rosa Parks would not have been effective if she used violence. In the United States, violence is not an effective means of establishing a point. If Rosa Parks did what she did in other countries of the world she would have been dragged behind the bus. We are a civilized people, we logicly [sic] evaluate arguments.

Those heathens! Nowhere in America will you find someone dragged behind a truck for four miles because of their race or tied to a fence and left to die because of their sexual orientation.

You're not really suggesting that [Congress] shouldn't decide what we due with our military simply because they are too old or handicaped [sic] to participate are you?

Why is that more ridiculous than suggesting that women shouldn’t have the right to vote about issues that affect them because they cannot participate in conscription as well?

You’ve said that women should lobby Congress to change Department of Defense policies and allow them access to the draft, while arguing that they should be denied the right to vote because they’re not participating in government in a way you agree with. If women cannot vote, no congressman will act upon their lobby because it offers absolutely no political advantage. You’ve perverted the essential notion of freedom – the ability to act with autonomy without fear of repercussions – by suggesting that those who disagree with your notion of what’s right, just, and necessary be denied the same opportunities as you. The slaves, at least, had the Three-Fifths Compromise, but you seem unwilling to provide women with even that much respect.

I don't think what happened on 9/11 was a phantom incident, do you? The United States is being targeted by terrorists, we must use all the power we have to stop them.

I don’t believe that most of the military action the United States has engaged in in the past three years has any relevance nor positive impact upon preventing events like those that took place on September 11, 2001. I do believe, however, that a war-mongering political administration used “fear and violence” following those attacks to further is militaristic agenda. There are tomes on this message board about the conflict in Iraq, in particular, and I’ve written plenty about why I disagree with that action. If you care to educate yourself, go read it. I’m not repeating myself for your benefit.

A valid point, so a court case could not change the draft, but electing the appropriate people into congress would. Doesn't congress represent the will of the people? Couldn't a feminist movement cause the members of congress to change the draft rules? If it could, why aren't we seeing that happen as talks of the first draft in the 21st century begin?

I’ve already established that you’re attempting to penalize a group for voting in ways you don’t agree with by trying to deny them the right to vote at all – an action not unlike those that sought to disenfranchise African Americans after the Civil War. You must be unaware of the “Jim Crow” laws that required African Americans be able to read before being allowed to vote. Those laws were created by the same people who, in years prior, denied those African Americans – living as slaves – freedom and education. How, then, could any of those former slaves be expected to pass a literacy test when they’d previously been denied all opportunities to educate themselves?

You’re arguments are nothing more than modern-day Jim Crow laws, Mike. You are no better than the racists that sought unabashedly and without remorse to maintain the irreverent and immoral race hierarchy in this country during Reconstruction. Sorry.

If you want to make a valid argument, please explain to me why women should not be required to register for the draft. And if they should not, why they should still have the right to vote.

Not once have I stated a position on whether women should be required to register for conscription, nor do I intend to. Instead, I have focused on explaining precisely why your attempts at equating military service with earning our rights is flawed, sexist, bigoted, misinformed and completely ridiculous. I’ll be happy to continue focusing on those attempts until you can provide some evidence that you’re not a misogynistic, sexist fool.

[Joe Matt]

Mabey this would be a good time to move this thread to the moderated discussion section. IMHO this would be a good time for a 3rd, non-sided party, to review and look over the posts before they post it.

[Madison]

Originally Posted by JosephM

Mabey this would be a good time to move this thread to the moderated discussion section. IMHO this would be a good time for a 3rd, non-sided party, to review and look over the posts before they post it.

It'd be a particularly good time to move it to moderated discussion if you want to insure that I no longer participate. I will not submit my discussions to moderation because people think that I'm a bit more upset about this than they'd like me to be.

Edit: I'm done with trying to defend the work of the myriad activists and progressive Americans who've done so much to avoid violence and effect change, even in the face of those who would see them silenced and ignored. There's very little more that I can say that I haven't already said and the upset and stress that this is causing me is only serving to shorten my future in FIRST -- something I've tried hard to avoid for the past few years.

[Brandon Martus]

I think it's fine, for now. If things get rough, we'll move it after.

[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.

[EddieMcD]

I will not enter this thread. I will not enter this thread. I will not enter this thread.

::enters thread::

D'oh!

I'm going to be frank here: I didn't read all the posts. Especially once the personal attacks started. So I'll just point things out as I go.

Okay, viewpoint #1: the "all things being equal" viewpoint. If you truly believe all things are equal, then women should be allowed in the draft. Of course, all things aren't equal; it's just life. But in this case, men and women are essentially equal.

Viewpoint #2: the "women aren't as physically capable" viewpoint. In some cases, this may be a valid point (although I personally don't believe it). But if it was, then we wouldn't have women volunteering for military service.

Viewpoint #3: the "combine viewpoints 1 & 2" viewpoint. Simply put, you can't have it both ways. Which is why I personally think women shouldn't have their own sports leagues. They should be playing with the men. But now I'm getting off topic.

Back on topic, in our world violence solves everything (just ask the people of Carthage, Constantinople, and Hiroshima). And unfortunately, it always will. It's simply our human nature. That being said, if there is something I believe in, I will fight for it, using violence if necessary (although only after every other means is exhausted). Of course, you can flip-flop that. If I don't believe in it, I won't fight for it. And I refuse to be forced to do so. It's simply un-American and wrong. I'll get right to the point and say I don't believe in our country's actions. My answer to the question: women should not be in the draft. Plain and simple. Oh yeah, this is an unfair question since I also believe men should not be in the draft. If people want to fight and they believe in the cause, power to them. But if you are so low on reserves that you need to draft, it's because you're short on volunteers. And if you're short on volunteers, then most likely you're running things badly enough where the people don't believe in the cause.

Wow, I've quoted Heinlein twice today.

[Astronouth7303]

Originally Posted by EddieMcD

... My answer to the question: women should not be in the draft. Plain and simple. Oh yeah, this is an unfair question since I also believe men should not be in the draft. ...

Yeah!

I said 'yes' on the premise that men were drafted. But I really agree on both points. (solution: get a job as a mechanic for the UAVs. You're less likely to get active duty.)

[MikeDubreuil]

Originally Posted by M. Krass

Of course, I’m not surprised that the backpedaling you’ve begun will continue as you go off trying to pretend that you haven’t expressed such sentiment.

It's imporant to make a distinction between my beliefs and my arguments in this thread. You may think I'm backpedaling, I'm not. When I started the thread I fuly intended to support my view point until the end. I would be lying if I said I wasn't hoping you would participate in this thread.

My Beliefs:
I believe that women should not have to be a part of the draft. If they would like to participate in the military they can volunteer. They should even be able to volunteer for front line combat positions. Women should also be able to vote regardless on whether they are registered for the draft or have volunteered in the military.

My Argument in the Thread:
My hope was that we could have an intelligent discussion of this. Why should a woman receive the benefit of voting, if she has no military responsibility?

I've seen an argument that says the reason they haven't registered for the draft is because they can't. The feminist movement has given women all of the positive benifets of male US citizens, why haven't they asked for the negative ones? Or more specifically to this thread, why haven't you said you personally would accept a military responsibilty? You don't mind having the freedoms of a US citizen as long as other people (read: men) die.

I don't understand how it's bigoted, sexist, and hateful if all I'm looking for is for you to agree on equality. Is it not equal for drafted men and drafted women to stand next to each other and bare arms during a war?

[Jay H 237]

[OFF TOPIC]

Originally Posted by M. Krass

the upset and stress that this is causing me is only serving to shorten my future in FIRST -- something I've tried hard to avoid for the past few years.

While I have never met you or know if you have any other reasons for possibly leaving FIRST this shouldn't be a reason to drive you (or anyone) away. In FIRST and other aspects of life you will have disagreements and run into "bad apples" but you shouldn't allow that to get in the way of what YOU want or believe in. If we all ran away or gave up when things got tough we wouldn't get anywhere.

[OFF TOPIC]

I find this an interesting topic and hope we all remain civil and stay on course with the original topic so it doesn't become moderated or worse......

[Eugenia Gabrielov]

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

It's imporant to make a distinction between my beliefs and my arguments in this thread. You may think I'm backpedaling, I'm not. When I started the thread I fuly intended to support my view point until the end. I would be lying if I said I wasn't hoping you would participate in this thread.

etc.

First of all, I'd like to thank Mike for making a statement of his beliefs. I hope this will serve as a catalyst to the discussion, because it will hopefully stop the comments on "someone believes this, someone believes that." I also pass on to M. Krass that I hope you would stay in the thread, because your political passion, as Bill Gold words it, would be much much missed (sincerely so.)

I believe that neither should be drafted (kudos to those who have said it) but that is not the object of my post. Please understand that the rest of this is based on that belief. I do however understand his thought process of women should have the right to volunteer at frontlines. To share a personal story, a good friend of mine is in the US Army and truly desires to fight on the front lines. Army is a family tradition for her, and she enjoys and cherishes this tradition. Just because no feminist movement has risen in the public eye to protest the lack of female involvement in frontlines, doesn't mean they don't want to be there. Before a movement rose up to protest lack of voting rights, many women wanted them. Please understand that women as a whole are not a feminist movement: we are individuals who may not always have access to demonstrations, but are more than willing to unite for a cause. That is the only correction I have.

The other reason for posting this is a request for Mike to explain the connection between military service and government rights. The connection screams "devils advocate" to me, but as a reasonable request I would like to ask that it be carefully explained. I am not "unjustifying" his question, if that's a word, I am merely asking for a clarification.

I agree on the case that if we must must be drafted, we should bare arms together. However, what is hindering this? Men and women bare arms together everywhere discluding the front lines. I imagine that in time, just as before, a new movement will rise up and fend of this restriction and then Mike will be happy and the women who have the will to just as the men who have the will to will have the opportunity to fight on the front line, in place of teenagers and 20-somethings who just want to graduate and go home.

[Astronouth7303]

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

I don't understand how it's bigoted, sexist, and hateful if all I'm looking for is for you to agree on equality. Is it not equal for drafted men and drafted women to stand next to each other and bare arms during a war?

Such things have been said about racism, too.

Of couse, it should be well known by now that the military isn't ready for women. And when I say that, I don't mean the Pentagon. I mean the fighters themselves. They act like big high schoolers sometimes. (remember the boys locker-room jokes? think big locker room.) Like the recent prison incedents in Iraq. And how about officers raping subordinates? (she under orders from him, of course)

[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.

[Joshua May]

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?”

Just to add to this, the US has also placed many ruthless dictators into power because they claimed to be non-communist (i.e. Nicaragua, Guatemala, Chile, Grenada, etc.)

Also, I think that this may be relevent, seeing as Congress has ammended including women in a possible draft:

Originally Posted by http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.89:

To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.

Originally Posted by http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.89:

SEC. 10. REGISTRATION OF FEMALES UNDER THE MILITARY SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT.

(a) REGISTRATION REQUIRED- Section 3(a) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. 453(a)) is amended--

(1) by striking `male' both places it appears;

(2) by inserting `or herself' after `himself'; and

(3) by striking `he' and inserting `the person'.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 16(a) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 466(a)) is amended by striking `men' and inserting `persons'.

[soezgg]

1. I am actually in the Army. So dont spew out some random trashy statements and try to pass them off as facts as if you know what you are talking about.

2. Draft? I cannot seriously believe that anyone even uses this word any more. There are more patriotic volunteers now than ever, for some reason, they believe that fighting a war in the sandbox is directly related to our own personal freedoms.

3. Since the Armed Forces are way too big to admit personell on a case-by-case basis, they have to rely on generalizations and the little certainties in life:
a. Despite what you see on Alias, a 110 lb female cannot kick down a door.
b. Generally, women have less muscle mass and endurance. So when it comes to carrying a wounded Soldier 5 kilometers to a safe and open space for a MEDEVAC before you get shot by local rebels, I would put my money on a male.
c. There are all sorts of...well...medical issues that present themselves when women are in the field too long.


So, as you can see, I am sexist when it comes to women in combat. But, I work with lots of women in the Army and most of them are close to being as competent as I am in my job field. So I really have no problem with women defending their nation.

Again, back to the 'draft' issue. The only reason the US would draft is if we needed millions of bullet sponges like in vietnam and ww2. Women, while generally smaller targets, and able to tolerate higher levels of pain, do not make good infantry. Feminists are smart so I think they would realize this. Dont you?

So, inserting a meaningless clause in some dusty legislation to make women 'equal' doesnt really make much sense to me.


Good Game