Women to take on combat roles (stupid question to follow)

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 10:51 PM
link   
If women are going to used in front lines and higher combat roles.

Does that mean that they can be drafted also?




posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by txinfidel
 


Of course not. The government believes in equality with special rules for all circumstances.

Lower physical requirements - yes
Allowed into combat roles - yes
Possibility of being drafted - no

Equality with special rules.

It is scarey to think: if this move was made to allow women to be drafted it would actually double our manpower in the event of a serious war. Does someone in government know something they aren't saying?



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 10:59 PM
link   
If I may ask a slightly off-topic question myself, What are the enlistment statistics at the moment in the U.S. ?
Seems to me that with such high unemployment, the only place that guarantees employment is the military.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatcoat
 


I think the enlistment numbers are low. On the other hand you can be homeless and no one would care. Unions are always looking for useful idiots though. Prisons are also a choice if you want three hots and a cot.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by 200Plus
 


Well thats what Im wondering, if they know or are contemplating something that they are not saying.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 11:23 PM
link   
Actually I've heard this afternoon from some legal "experts" that yes, women 18-25 will likely be required to register with selective service relatively soon. The question has come up in the past and previous court decisions only kept females from having to register due to their lack of a combat role (which is the only purpose of the draft in the first place.) Without that special consideration, this will likely end up with the SCOTUS and will almost certainly become all Americans 18-25 must register.

In other news, watch how quickly I can disappear into the woods with my wife & children should it ever look like my son or daughter will fall victim to some typically assbrained American government war for magic beans and unicorn farts. I've got another 12 years before I have to start worrying about that, but my kids are being raised to fight for ideals and values... not for cronies of the idiots wearing ape suits occupying big leather chairs in the Pentagon and offices of Congress.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


Well I figured there was a reason behind it.

I dont even know what to say. This seems like an all out front on the american people. Its disgusting to put women into combat and front lines even and not give them a choice whatsoever.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 11:39 PM
link   
Hey yay, I found a source backing up what I heard on talk radio for a change.


news.yahoo.com...


And as a practical matter: When women turn 18, will they now need to register, as men do, so that they can be conscripted in the event of a World War III, or any military emergency where the US government decides it needs troops quickly?
[SNIP]
“The answer to that question is clearly yes,” says Anne Coughlin, a law professor at the University of Virginia School of Law in Charlottesville. “The legal argument is clear: If it comes to that kind of wrenching emergency where we have to press young people into service, there is no legal justification for saying that men alone need to shoulder that burden.”

[SNIP]

Once the combat exclusion policy is lifted, “My belief is that if we open up combat arms to women, even on a voluntary basis, if there is a draft, we should be able to force women into those positions,” says retired Col. Peter Mansoor, a professor of military history at the Ohio State University in Columbus and a former US Army brigade commander who served two tours in Iraq.

“If women are acceptable to serve in combat, they are acceptable to serve whether they volunteer or not. You can’t have the frosting on the cake and not the cake underneath,” he says.


So there you have it. I seriously believe that, in any war aside from direct defense of attacked US soil, the front lines should first and foremost consist of all politicians who ultimately made the decision to fight the war in the first place. Clearly the Pentagon sees a different idea... Of course we're talking about a government which systematically destroys the future generations' economic prosperity to benefit/support the older generations, so why the hell wouldn't they take it another step and destroy their entire lives, too?



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


Well that does it. How can people be against the 2nd amendment when the government is openly trying to kill us?

Every member of congress or the senate that passes this should be the first ones drafted.

Grrr..

If Obamas got balls he should try to act like George Washington and quit being a coward like lincoln.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Are we sure we want moody women with PMS out in the battlefields? Oh wait, I have bad cramps I can't go on.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Night Star
 


Oh I think women would be very effective in the battlefield even more so than men in some cases. But these folks want to put your sons and daughters in danger over there overly compulsive battles. I dont think it is funny or would be funny when they want your son or daughter to fight their cowardly battles for them.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Night Star
 

Dear Night Star,

Thanks a lot for your comment, it triggered a faint memory and through the magic of the Internet I found it. Years ago, Rush Limbaugh suggested forming the All American First Cavalry Amazon Battalion. His thinking was that the unit could be divided into four groups and housed seperately. Women's cycles have been shown to sychronize when they live for extended periods of time in close proximity. Therefore, at any given time there would be a group of women suffering from PMS.

Imagine giving those women weapons and turning them loose on the battlefield. No army could stand against them.

Thanks for the memory.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 12:44 AM
link   
Then there's this: (Note: I am NOT trying to paint the majority of America's troops with this brush.)
news.yahoo.com...

The Air Force recorded an "appalling" number of reports of sexual assault last year even as it worked to curb misconduct in the wake of a sex scandal at its training headquarters in Texas, the service's top officer told lawmakers on Wednesday.

Gen. Mark Welsh, the Air Force chief of staff, said there were 796 reports of cases ranging from inappropriate touching to rape. The 2012 figure is a nearly 30 percent increase from 2011 when 614 cases were reported. The number could be much greater, Welsh said, because many cases are never reported at all.


truth-out.org...:military-sexual-abuse-a-greater-menace-than-combat

"A woman who signs up to protect her country is more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire," stated former California Democratic Rep. Jane Harman in testimony before a July 2008 House panel investigating the military's handling of sexual assault reports. The Congresswoman added that her "jaw dropped" when she learned from military doctors that four of ten women in a local veterans hospital had been raped by fellow soldiers. What's equally startling, though, is that Harman - a reputed national security insider and a strong supporter of women in the military - was in the dark about rampant military sexual assault.


Interesting that they make this ruling on the same day the Air Force was staring down the barrel of a massive female soldier rape scandal. I honestly have to question the mental well being of any parent who would encourage (or dare I say allow) their daughters to enter the military. If those same parents ever taught their girls not to walk dark alleys alone at night then they are either hypocrites or live in complete ignorance of statistics and facts.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by txinfidel
reply to post by Night Star
 


Oh I think women would be very effective in the battlefield even more so than men in some cases. But these folks want to put your sons and daughters in danger over there overly compulsive battles. I dont think it is funny or would be funny when they want your son or daughter to fight their cowardly battles for them.


I don't like men or women to go to war. Too many lives have been lost already. It's insane!



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Night Star
 


Yes I know. If I wanted to fight for the government I would have volunteered and have gotten paid.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:19 AM
link   
I'm not much of a prognosticator, but I can easily see the numbers of single mothers-to-be skyrocketing if this is implemented. We may actually find out about parents who are hoping their young daughter can swing getting preggers to avoid the draft. And that will be a HUGE cultural shift within the US subcultures which preach the avoidance of unwed-motherhood.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Charles1952,

The young feminist in me is deeply offended. However, the more mature rationalist is laughing so hard she had to walk away from her desk at work. I must agree that it's a strategy. I've removed myself from situations more than once because I knew my hormonal disadvantage threatened my own freedom if prosecuted, given my temporary ability to form my own infantry, declare and win a war against no less than nine zip codes in ten minutes using only my knitting-needles and my trusty Black and Decker laser-leveller and studfinder.

Thanks so much for the belly-laugh. I needed one.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by chasingbrahman
 


Given the government's attitude towards the unborn, I suspect they'd veiw a pregnancy as a "correctable condition" and not allow that to interfere with the qualifications of the conscripted.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 01:28 PM
link   
but....but....but, who's going to make the soup.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by chasingbrahman
reply to post by charles1952
 


Charles1952,

The young feminist in me is deeply offended. However, the more mature rationalist is laughing so hard she had to walk away from her desk at work. I must agree that it's a strategy. I've removed myself from situations more than once because I knew my hormonal disadvantage threatened my own freedom if prosecuted, given my temporary ability to form my own infantry, declare and win a war against no less than nine zip codes in ten minutes using only my knitting-needles and my trusty Black and Decker laser-leveller and studfinder.

Thanks so much for the belly-laugh. I needed one.


LOL, I'm dying laughing. This post is amazing. I would high-five you if I could.





new topics
top topics
 
2

log in

join