PDA

View Full Version : Selective Service: Should Females Be Required to Register?


Donger
06-12-2006, 04:01 PM
Your thoughts?

BucEyedPea
06-12-2006, 04:02 PM
No
Equality with men sukks! :#

Donger
06-12-2006, 04:05 PM
No
Equality with men sukks! :#

Seriously. I read recently that the ratio of men to women in our military today is something like 5:1. I've never been a proponent of women in combat roles but I'm of the opinion that females should be required to register.

banyon
06-12-2006, 04:14 PM
If we aren't going to draft them, then there'd be no point.

Taco John
06-12-2006, 04:16 PM
Pick up a broom!

BucEyedPea
06-12-2006, 04:19 PM
Seriously. I read recently that the ratio of men to women in our military today is something like 5:1. I've never been a proponent of women in combat roles but I'm of the opinion that females should be required to register.

I participated in a debate on a Buc board, regarding women in combat specifically. I just didn't care for the idea from my own personal views. But I had to research and read up on some things about it. Not good for women at all. More rape, more mistreatment of women by men. It hardens men on women sharing quarters in such an environment. Other areas of military fine such as being a spy and seducing male enemies with sex...that could be kinda fun.

What I found out was where women in combat has been tried, it's been done away with. Even Israel. The men, naturally, would step to aid a female sooner when under fire. Otherwise if hardens men toward the opposite sex. This is one reason why I don't want full equal rights with men. I think we deserve some protection from such things and I feel some inequalities can work to our advantage. We're just not the same.

John_Locke
06-12-2006, 04:20 PM
Your thoughts?


yes

Nightwish
06-12-2006, 04:22 PM
I've never had a strong opinion on the subject. Without the draft in place, though, selective service registration serves about as much purpose as an appendix. I do believe, though, that folks who are married, parenting, or expecting should not be required to register. That goes for both sexes.

Donger
06-12-2006, 04:26 PM
If we aren't going to draft them, then there'd be no point.

Let's assume that they would be eligible to be drafted, just as the men are.

Donger
06-12-2006, 04:33 PM
It hardens men on women sharing quarters in such an environment.

Yes, yes it does.

memyselfI
06-12-2006, 04:39 PM
No. No one should be required to register.

Donger
06-12-2006, 04:44 PM
No. No one should be required to register.

How far away are your sons from breaking the law?

memyselfI
06-12-2006, 04:46 PM
How far away are your sons from breaking the law?

4 and 8 years.

banyon
06-12-2006, 04:49 PM
I've never had a strong opinion on the subject. Without the draft in place, though, selective service registration serves about as much purpose as an appendix. I do believe, though, that folks who are married, parenting, or expecting should not be required to register. That goes for both sexes.

Ahh...the Dick Cheney "have a baby draft-dodge technique"...no thanks.

Donger
06-12-2006, 04:49 PM
4 and 8 years.

I'm sure you know, but they could register and in the highly likely event of a draft, they could file CO status. In that scenario, surely they've been brainwashed enough by you to mount a cogent defense of that status?

Donger
06-12-2006, 04:51 PM
Ahh...the Dick Cheney "have a baby draft-dodge technique"...no thanks.

Heh. I was surprised to discover that John Kerry applied for, and was denied, a student draft deferment before 'enlisting.' Did you know that?

banyon
06-12-2006, 04:51 PM
Outright drafting women into the military seems like a bad idea, IMO.

Having some sort of "national service" equivalent for women though, that kept them out of combat might be acceptable. Of course Clinton tried to pass that, so it must be a terrible idea.

Nightwish
06-12-2006, 04:53 PM
I'm sure you know, but they could register and in the highly likely event of a draft, they could file CO status. In that scenario, surely they've been brainwashed enough by you to mount a cogent defense of that status?
From what I've heard, the military isn't always exactly friendly with members who declare themselves Conscientious Objectors. I've known of a couple who were arrested and tossed in "the brig" even after passing the CO test with flying colors.

Donger
06-12-2006, 04:54 PM
Outright drafting women into the military seems like a bad idea, IMO.

Having some sort of "national service" equivalent for women though, that kept them out of combat might be acceptable. Of course Clinton tried to pass that, so it must be a terrible idea.

That's pretty much my thought as well. Except that they must register like the men. In case of a draft, they go through the process, but not for combat roles.

memyselfI
06-12-2006, 04:54 PM
I'm sure you know, but they could register and in the highly likely event of a draft, they could file CO status. In that scenario, surely they've been brainwashed enough by you to mount a cogent defense of that status?

They'll register because it's the law. They won't go anywhere though.

Donger
06-12-2006, 04:56 PM
They'll register because it's the law. They won't go anywhere though.

Oh, I thought you wouldn't even let them register. Good for you!

Hopefully, they'll rebel against you as they become more self-aware and join up willingly.

BucEyedPea
06-12-2006, 05:04 PM
Outright drafting women into the military seems like a bad idea, IMO.


Men should fight men.

Having some sort of "national service" equivalent for women though, that kept them out of combat might be acceptable. Of course Clinton tried to pass that, so it must be a terrible idea.
:eek: Eeooow yuck! Just like a commie nation. :huh:

We stay home and will run the factories....that is if they're not all in Asia by then.

banyon
06-12-2006, 05:21 PM
Men should fight men.


:eek: Eeooow yuck! Just like a commie nation. :huh:

We stay home and will run the factories....that is if they're not all in Asia by then.

I assumed we'd be limiting such activities, even on the domestic front, to wartime. That's pretty much what we did in WWII anyway, we just didn't have a program for it.

Brock
06-12-2006, 07:43 PM
Why? What use are they in a combat situation?

Adept Havelock
06-12-2006, 07:54 PM
Why? What use are they in a combat situation?

According to Herodotus, Tomyris, Queen of the Massagetae, Defeated Cyrus the Great in Battle.

While she ultimately lost, Boudicca of the Iceni gave the Romans a hell of a fight.

Ever heard of Jean of Orleans? Not just a general, but a hell of a fighter.

Some were damned effective as combat pilots and in other roles in the USSR during WW2. :shrug:

Ever watch a female of any species defend their young against a predator? Watch that a few times and try and tell me that women can't fight. Heck, Kipling wrote that the Tommies would rather have been captured by men, anyday.

On the whole though, anything, even a pointless taboo, that keeps half the species out of war isn't a bad notion.

Brock
06-12-2006, 08:00 PM
We don't have time for rape court in a war situation.

Brock
06-12-2006, 08:02 PM
According to Herodotus, Tomyris, Queen of the Massagetae, Defeated Cyrus the Great in Battle.

While she ultimately lost, Boudicca of the Iceni gave the Romans a hell of a fight.

Ever heard of Jean of Orleans? Not just a general, but a hell of a fighter..

I can come up with 5 or 6 women off the top of my head that can fight. That doesn't mean pulling them at random out of the general population is a good idea. Personally, I think the draft is a bad idea in nearly any case.

go bowe
06-12-2006, 08:06 PM
women should be required to register, and if a draft is reinstituted, they should be drafted like anybody else (that being men, generally)...

nowadays, women are in combat anyway, what with the inurgency not being limited to the front lines, wherever they may be...

and there are some small soldiers, and they perform as well as big soldiers when it comes to killing the enemy...

i don't see any reason why women should be limited from combat roles if that is what they want to do...

hell, if women can be cops and firefighters, they obviously are capable of serving in combat alongside the men...

Adept Havelock
06-12-2006, 08:06 PM
Personally, I think the draft is a bad idea in nearly any case.

I'll agree with that. About the only thing that would justify it to me is a WW2 like situation, and even that seems unlikely. I think the days of massive armies of the mobilized citizenry have gone the way of the maxim gun.

Brock
06-12-2006, 08:10 PM
I'll agree with that. About the only thing that would justify it to me is a WW2 like situation, and even that seems unlikely. I think the days of massive armies of the mobilized citizenry have gone the way of the maxim gun.

I think the only reason Reagan instituted that was to antagonize the Russians anyway.

Adept Havelock
06-12-2006, 08:31 PM
I think the only reason Reagan instituted that was to antagonize the Russians anyway.

I'll agree. It was just a response to their system of univeral conscription, which might have been effective if they had actually built a professional NCO force. The USSR's 6-month shake and bake a recruit and make him a sergeant approch was one of the dumbest ideas in military history.

BucEyedPea
06-12-2006, 08:39 PM
nowadays, women are in combat anyway, what with the inurgency not being limited to the front lines, wherever they may be...

I believe that under our current laws women are not allowed in combat even if the insurgency has made the rules of war harder to define whether or not they are in combat. My understanding is what the US military has been attempting to bypass these laws and part of that is due to a lack of men.

I also agree with Brock you cannot randomly select women who are able to be close to a man in combat. Those are few. Don't forget some of the physical tests have been made easier. Every nation that has tried using women in combat has abandoned it, including the Israelis. Musta been a good reason for it.

There have also been hearins in congress about female pilots reaction time being slower and causing deaths.

Logical
06-12-2006, 08:39 PM
I think that they should yes. I also think they should be eligible for combat just like they are in Israel.

Logical
06-12-2006, 08:41 PM
I believe that under our current laws women are not allowed in combat even if the insurgency has made the rules of war harder to define whether or not they are in combat. My understanding is what the US military has been attempting to bypass these laws and part of that is due to a lack of men.

I also agree with Brock you cannot randomly select women who are able to be close to a man in combat. Every nation that has tried using women in combat has abandoned it, including the Israelis. Musta been a good reason for it.

There have also been hearins in congress about female pilots reaction time being slower and causing deaths.

Do you have a source for the Israelies abandoning women in combat?

BucEyedPea
06-12-2006, 08:41 PM
I think that they should yes. I also think they should be eligible for combat just like they are in Israel.

Israel, as I last read, did away with it. The men were being overprotective of the women in enough cases to the point that it was dangerous.

BucEyedPea
06-12-2006, 08:42 PM
Do you have a source for the Israelies abandoning women in combat?
Oops! I posted when you were.

I'd have to go dig it up. Maybe not tonight.

Mr. Laz
06-12-2006, 08:56 PM
hell yes ... if they are gonna bitch neverending about equality than lets give it to them......... ALL OF IT.

no more "equality with benefits" or "equality ... but"


take the bad with the good


work the same, get paid the same ....... don't work the same, don't get paid the same.


none of this gimme the job, but then i'll need help, crap

BucEyedPea
06-12-2006, 09:08 PM
Do you have a source for the Israelies abandoning women in combat?

Couldn't get the link right to that newsite, which was conservative, but found something that seems to be the same. Actually I think it's the same one.

First off Israelis live in a state of constant warfare. Just like the pioneer woman needed to defend herself from outlaws and Indians, they need to be armed and trained how to use a gun.


http://www.newdaynews.com/openhouse/index.cgi/noframes/read/24436

Excerpts:
It's time to debunk the myth, once and for all, that Israel's experience with allowing women in combat was successful and, therefore, should be duplicated by the Pentagon. It wasn't successful. It was a disaster by Israel's own admission...

For example, it is a common mis perception that Israel allows women in combat units. In fact, women have been barred from combat in Israel since 1950, when a review of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War showed how harmful their presence could be. The study revealed that men tried to protect and assist women rather than continue their attack. As a result, they not only put their own lives in greater danger, but also jeopardized the survival of the entire unit. The study further revealed that unit morale was damaged when men saw women killed and maimed on the battlefield," Luddy said.


But to use the "Israeli experience" as an allegedly successful model for the U.S. to follow is not only absurd, it's disingenuous. It is a lie propagated by radical feminists like ex-Democratic Rep. Patricia Schroeder who have falsely claimed that such a goal is merely an extension "the will of the people."

Lurch
06-12-2006, 09:31 PM
hell yes ... if they are gonna bitch neverending about equality than lets give it to them......... ALL OF IT.

no more "equality with benefits" or "equality ... but"


take the bad with the good


work the same, get paid the same ....... don't work the same, don't get paid the same.


none of this gimme the job, but then i'll need help, crap

Yup.

BucEyedPea
06-12-2006, 09:34 PM
hell yes ... if they are gonna bitch neverending about equality than lets give it to them......... ALL OF IT.


Well who are "they?" Do not confuse the NOW feminists with what most women want. NOW has long been taken over by butches. These are the ones pushing for all this stuff. Women's groups like Concerned Women for America beats them hands down in membership numbers.

Lurch
06-12-2006, 09:36 PM
Well who are "they?" Do not confuse the NOW feminists with what most women want. NOW has long been taken over by butches. These are the ones pushing for all this stuff. Women's groups like Concerned Women for America beats them hands down in membership numbers.

Will you please start a thread, along those lines. I agree with you but the pussified liberals and feminists here wouldn't take it seriously from one of the "guys." Thanks in advance.

Logical
06-12-2006, 09:48 PM
Thanks for the info

Nightwish
06-12-2006, 10:02 PM
Will you please start a thread, along those lines. I agree with you but the pussified liberals and feminists here wouldn't take it seriously from one of the "guys." Thanks in advance.
The radical feminazi set, and the NOW set are in the minority among feminists, and not well-regarded by most of the feminist community. Feminists, and a fair number of liberals already know this. The ones who primarily prop them up as normative of the feminist community are their detractors from the right.

go bowe
06-13-2006, 12:19 AM
Couldn't get the link right to that newsite, which was conservative, but found something that seems to be the same. Actually I think it's the same one.

First off Israelis live in a state of constant warfare. Just like the pioneer woman needed to defend herself from outlaws and Indians, they need to be armed and trained how to use a gun.


http://www.newdaynews.com/openhouse/index.cgi/noframes/read/24436

Excerpts: It's time to debunk the myth, once and for all, that Israel's experience with allowing women in combat was successful and, therefore, should be duplicated by the Pentagon. It wasn't successful. It was a disaster by Israel's own admission...

For example, it is a common mis perception that Israel allows women in combat units. In fact, women have been barred from combat in Israel since 1950, when a review of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War showed how harmful their presence could be. The study revealed that men tried to protect and assist women rather than continue their attack. As a result, they not only put their own lives in greater danger, but also jeopardized the survival of the entire unit. The study further revealed that unit morale was damaged when men saw women killed and maimed on the battlefield," Luddy said.


But to use the "Israeli experience" as an allegedly successful model for the U.S. to follow is not only absurd, it's disingenuous. It is a lie propagated by radical feminists like ex-Democratic Rep. Patricia Schroeder who have falsely claimed that such a goal is merely an extension "the will of the people." you might want to get up to date...As of 2005, Women are allowed to serve in 83% of all positions in the military, including Shipboard Navy Service (except submarines), and Artillery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artillery). Combat roles are voluntary for women. linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Israel)

StcChief
06-13-2006, 05:35 AM
Why not. They want to be treated as equals.

Register but doesn't mean every position in the military is
the right fit.

BucEyedPea
06-13-2006, 06:40 AM
you might want to get up to date...

Only if wikipedia is accurate...sometimes it isn't.

That article was on World Net Daily originally and appeared in other places.
WND also came up in Google, but the links did not work.

patteeu
06-13-2006, 07:49 AM
Only if wikipedia is accurate...sometimes it isn't.

That article was on World Net Daily originally and appeared in other places.
WND also came up in Google, but the links did not work.

If you found it on Google, you can probably pull up the cached page if the link is dead.

Donger
06-13-2006, 07:56 AM
Here (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23886) is the WND article. I don't know if the IDF still considers women for combat roles or not.

go bowe
06-13-2006, 12:07 PM
Only if wikipedia is accurate...sometimes it isn't.

That article was on World Net Daily originally and appeared in other places.
WND also came up in Google, but the links did not work.how 'bout the washinton times? Women serve extensively as instructors in training camps, but they are not assigned to combat units unless they volunteer for them and qualify. [link (http://snipurl.com/rq6j)and, fwiw, you're claiming that newsmax is more accurate and authoritative than wikikpedia and the washington times?

that newsmax article is talking about what israel did in 1950, some 56 years ago...

things have changed since then...

go bowe
06-13-2006, 12:14 PM
Here (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23886) is the WND article. I don't know if the IDF still considers women for combat roles or not.that article refers to the 1950 study (still 56 years ago) and quotes a few pundits' opinions...

it does not indicate that women are not currently serving in combat roles in the idf...

and it is hardly authoritative, it's not even done by journalists, just some cobbled together opinions from people who oppose women in combat...

banyon
06-13-2006, 12:33 PM
Newsmax is teh bomb!!!1

go bowe
06-13-2006, 12:46 PM
how 'bout the washinton times?and, fwiw, you're claiming that newsmax is more accurate and authoritative than wikikpedia and the washington times?

that newsmax article is talking about what israel did in 1950, some 66 years ago...

things have changed since then...if you don't like wikipedia, how's the official idf (http://snipurl.com/rq9f) site in israel? Who said that men outnumber women in IDF combat units? In the 'Karkal' division, which is comprised of both male and female combat soldiers, female combatants have a hands down majority! And just to clarify, the men and the women go through exactly the same training.

Adept Havelock
06-13-2006, 05:03 PM
if you don't like wikipedia, how's the official idf (http://snipurl.com/rq9f) site in israel?
Game, set and match to go bo.

BucEyedPea
06-13-2006, 06:11 PM
Ok go bo, wiki says it's 83% of positions so that leaves 17% unavailable to women...and the idf sites says it's 81% which leaves 19% unavailable. From all I've checked to day ( which was a lot with more being sent to me), despite that women mainly fill clerical, technical and administrative roles.

None of that refutes, that they had problems with it earlier though. It just means they must have changed something in their rules in between the time period of the two articles. Such as pressure from feminist lobbies as one of your links says resulting in a landmark High Court case in 1994. Typical politically-correct actvists attempting to trump actual performance in the field. It also says their AF even closed its ranks at one time. Note also that the woman who took it to the High Court failed the exam. LOL! Also only 450 serve in combat units but that's work for border security which is just police work.

Nothing in your links, proves that performance problems, military preparedness or moral was not a self-admitted problem at one time by Israel.

I still don't see it making a case for us doing the same as Israel, especially for a country that is constantly under seige the way Israel is. Kinda like the Indians circling the wagons. Israel is a a far more socialist state too and radical gender equality is part of the ideology. In fact the whole idea is to liberate a woman from her biology and have the state raise the children abolishing the family. Yuck! Not my idea of a good society.

Further, physical training is gendered normed in the US. Female soldiers got pregnant in record numbers while in Iraq ( a great way to get out ). And why do you think there are so many sex scandals in the military these days, such as senior with a junior, who later alleges sexual harrassment out of revenge?

99% of women are unqualified and as such reduces military preparedness.

But I am awaiting info to clarify the Israeli rules further and to see just how many partake of it. Like I said they are under siege unlike us, so they also have conscription for all. Should we add that too because they do?

go bowe
06-13-2006, 10:29 PM
:huh:

go bowe
06-13-2006, 10:35 PM
you said israel does not permit women in combat roles...

i provided links to wikipedia, the washington times, and the official israeli defense forces website...

israel does have women in combat roles, you said they didn't based on some article from freaking newsmax...

you were wrong when you said it, you're wrong now...

as to all that other shit, who cares?

you said israel doesn't permit women in combat roles, and you were proven wrong and wrong again...

good heavens, you slide away from misstatements and outright falsehoods when confronted with actual evidence just like kotter...

are you one of his new alter egos or something?

newsmax... ROFL ROFL ROFL

BucEyedPea
06-14-2006, 07:59 AM
you said israel does not permit women in combat roles...

i provided links to wikipedia, the washington times, and the official israeli defense forces website...

israel does have women in combat roles, you said they didn't based on some article from freaking newsmax...

you said israel doesn't permit women in combat roles, and you were proven wrong and wrong again...
I orignally said they abandoned it after a having had women in combat roles for a period of time and why they did. Later added.."as I last read."
Do you need "Hooked-on-Phonics?'

you were wrong when you said it, you're wrong now...
Where's the "nuance" you liberals claim the right is lacking now?
You never said I was wrong, you said I needed to get-up-to-date.
You were correct on the up-to-date part. But get it right.

as to all that other shit, who cares?
Of course you don't because it doesn't bear out that I was completely wrong either.


good heavens, you slide away from misstatements and outright falsehoods when confronted with actual evidence just like kotter...
Ya know, I don't like to ridicule people when I disagree but since you are doing I'd say it makes you fair game. Here you are projecting: alleging false statements while doing the same.

Here is one of my last posts on this point:

"Israel, as I last read, did away with it. The men were being overprotective of the women in enough cases to the point that it was dangerous."-- BucEyedPea

I'm sliding away from nothing. You are categorizing my error into the wrong category of thing and dropping out time,sequences and additional data that gives a fuller picture. A flaw of logic.

You're a retired lawyer you say? ROFL
No wonder there's an ethics problem in that profession.

are you one of his new alter egos or something?

You're a former lawyer yet you have to debate the poster?
You know what that means, you can't articulate your argument.

I was going to post today, if you responded civilly, that I appreciated your additional information....as you learn something new everyday. But it's new information if you see the dates on the two articles showing that things did change between now and then and how it did. It does not prove that Israel, did not self-admit it's failure in the past or having abandoned it at one time. That is the difference between your point and mine. Not exactly false, not completely up to date or true at present...just more information to round it out.

LMFAO!

ROFL ROFL ROFL

And one man's credible source is another's laughing stock...that's par for politics. Nothing new there.

BucEyedPea
06-14-2006, 08:08 AM
Why not. They want to be treated as equals.

Not most of us...just feminazis.

BucEyedPea
06-14-2006, 08:10 AM
hell, if women can be cops and firefighters, they obviously are capable of serving in combat alongside the men...
No they're not...not 99% per tests. The physical tests are all gender normed and made easier. Women are smaller, lighter, have less muscle mass,have less strength and slower reaction time.

BucEyedPea
06-14-2006, 08:15 AM
Some were damned effective as combat pilots and in other roles in the USSR during WW2. :shrug:
There was a hearing in Congress about some death's occurring due to the slower reaction time by women when ejecting out of their jets.

Ever watch a female of any species defend their young against a predator? Watch that a few times and try and tell me that women can't fight. Heck, Kipling wrote that the Tommies would rather have been captured by men, anyday.

That is a rare occurrence, having to do with the connection to it's own offspring making it the power of the mind and love over matter. That same connection may not necessarily exist, and I doubt it does, when in combat with other men/women. Wouldn't you say this would be kinda of chancy in a military situation to rely on as a given?

On the whole though, anything, even a pointless taboo, that keeps half the species out of war isn't a bad notion.
I don't see that the science backs this up as a pointless taboo, even if there are exceptions to it, which there are.

FishingRod
06-14-2006, 12:27 PM
While I find the "need" to have registration for the draft pretty iffy at this time, I see no reason to exclude females from the same obligations as males. Of course I also find it ridiculous that an 18 year-old is considered an adult, can be drafted, get married, raise children and still can't legally buy a beer. One of my step-daughters is in the Army. As a 20 year old she was an adult and was completely with in her rights to join regardless if her Mother or I liked it or not. Yet when we had a party for her going away to boot camp, she could have been fined for having a beer at her own party.What a crock of $hit.

So what I am saying is you should be an adult or not. And as an adult regardless if you are male or female you should have ALL of the same rights AND obligations as anyone else.